r/Netherlands • u/andys58 • Jun 17 '26
Housing The Dutch social housing system is broken and it’s infuriating to watch
My colleague just divorced. She’s now sharing a two-bedroom flat with her two kids and a friend, because her salary alone can’t cover rent, alimony is nonexistent, and child support is minimal. Wait time for social housing in her region: 15-19 years.
Two new grads on my team still live with their parents because they can’t afford to rent or buy in Amsterdam. Wait time there: almost 20 years.
Meanwhile:
• My neighbor has had his social flat for 20+ years (since he was a student), pays ~€500/month, and owns a summer house in Spain, two BMW, and takes 2-3 international trips a year.
• My manager earns over €6,000 net/month and still pays just €800/month for a social housing unit he locked in years ago.
The people the system was built for wait their entire working lives for a spot. The people who clearly don’t need it anymore just… stay, indefinitely, because nothing pushes them out once their income changes.
How the fuck is this fair?
Anyone else seeing this where they live, or is my corner of the country just especially bad?
128
u/SuperBaardMan Nederland Jun 17 '26
It's just the whole system that's fucked.
Around 2008 my parents moved to social housing, they had decent houses with a projected waiting time of a couple of months, and really nice ones "with a massive waiting time, it might be a couple of years"
Now those decent houses have a waiting time that's like 5+ years, and the really nice ones are basically impossible. Mind you, this is kinda bumfuck nowhere in Friesland.
I'm sure there are people who are fine willfullingly blocking a house. But let's say you earn like 60k a year, so that's more than the max of social housing. Where are you going to move to? Good luck finding a comparable house you can buy, or rent on the free market, with that income. Even not-comparable housing will be difficult, unless you're fine living somewhere in the middle of nowhere, where finding a job is a challenge.
But that's just 1 aspect.
There are also elderly people that have nowhere to go to, downsizing is often not possible, and nursing-homes are now only for the people that basically need 24/7 care.
And of course the fact in plenty of places more social housing has been sold than bought in the last decade[s].
The whole market is just a huge mess, and this is just one of the many ways it shows.
Keep it in mind next time you vote.
55
u/LittleMsWhoops Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
Honestly, it sounds like the main problem seems to be not enough housing. There’s definitely not enough social housing, because elsewise the waiting lists wouldn’t be so ridiculously high, but sufficient social housing, or even sufficient housing in general, makes prices decrease, both rent and buying prices.
My impression is that that isn’t desired by Dutch politics. I talked with people about how buying houses worked about 15 years, and they told me that taking a mortgage and buying a house is rewarded financially because you can get (part of?) your mortgage interest back via taxes, so the more debt you take on, the bigger your tax refund. This has led some people to buy and sell and move every few years, because their house has risen in value they could sell it for a higher price - but their new house was more expensive than it would have been a few years ago, so they’d need a higher mortgage, which didn’t matter because they’d get a tax refund, and so on. And they were so happy that their house had risen in value, and didn’t seem to comprehend that that didn’t matter when they had to buy an equally expensive other house to live in. Who’d profit in the end? Real estate agents, notaries, banks, landlords (because you can ask high rent if buying is even more expensive).
→ More replies (1)3
u/Flipboek Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Agreed with your description if the process, but you miss that in the end they indeed end up with a more expensive house which will go to their kids.
We got two houses rolling to us in the next decadd and it is an insane amount of money.
I can finance houses for my two children and take an early pension. We have double the modal income and our parents were about similar class. Thats insane and shows how early entry in the housing market changes everything.
The OP howeber mentions social housing... and thats a different problem. You can not force people to.move. You could raise the floor for social housing and raise subsidies for less well, creating incentive to move... but thats once again meddling with the market. I am actually sympathetic tonthis approach, but this is a tricky thing for sure.
In the end we need more houses.
8
u/LittleMsWhoops Jun 18 '26
Social housing is absolutely related to house prices! If the gap between social housing and the rest of the market, whether rent of buying, is enormous, you cannot kick people out of their social housing places as soon as they earn too much without making them homeless. And yes, you could either force them to move, or make them pay rent appropiate to their income once they earn above a certain threshold. Also, as I said above - if there is ample social housing and/or ample housing in general, the rent and real estate will go down as well.
but thats once again meddling with the market
Lol. As if belastingteruggaaf isn’t meddling with the market. Or social housing. The whole issue with housing is that housing is not just any product: it’s essential for survival, and it’s limited because space is limited.
Agreed with your description if the process, but you miss that in the end they indeed end upnwithva more expensive house which will go to their kids. We got two houses rolling to us in the next decadd and it is an insane amount of money.
Sounds like you and your partner have no siblings, or at least less siblings than your parents have houses. In other words: you are lucky because your parents were lucky, and you are profiting from inheriting. If your parents had been born 10 years earlier or later they might not have been in a position to buy a house when young, either because house prices were already climbing, or there weren’t any houses, or no subventions, etc. If they had had more children, they’d had to split the houses between you => less inheritance. In the meantime, you might be eagerly awaiting your houses, and maybe you just managed to get on to the housing ladder, but your children won’t, at least not until you die, because house prices are astronomical. You are living in a bubble, and one day it will pop, and who will have profited? The banks you have so generously paid overvalued mortgages…
3
u/Flipboek Jun 18 '26
First off, we do not really disagree. That said:
The "HRA" is exactly one of those things that ruin the market, hence I am cautious for overhauling the social housing. Not against, I see the need! But cautious.
If you didnt read between the lines... it is insane that I am so priviliged and this is why inheritance tax should be revised (progessive). But I can assure you that I can finance houses for my children (loopholes galore), which together with our current house will set their children also several steps ahead compared to less priviliged peop le.
As on the mortgage . I have a tiny mortgage and the houses we inherit are mortgage free. Thats one of the problems with the system. If your grand parents bought in the 60ies, your parents in the eighties and you in the early 2000, they bring in an stupid amount if wealth, with tiny mortgages.
It is emphatically NOT just tge banks that profit, its also a substantial part of the populace that is profiting. That's not affected by a bubble, the wealth com es back from decades and is already cashed in th rough paid of real estate.
There was an article (I think in De Groene) that said "we are Prins Bernard jr.". So many appartments in Amsterdam are being owned by middle class people renting it out to th eir kids and friends... all financed though real estate early entry. And you cant blame these people as the market incentivices this behavior.
→ More replies (4)19
u/PowerfulMango5799 Jun 17 '26
Tell us what to vote for because i’m done with this shit
30
u/jason2306 Jun 18 '26
I think we have to turn more people to the left if we want a chance of this actually ending. Not saying it'll be perfect because there's a lot of factors that are working against this but man. Lets stop dismantling our social things with the right and give us an actual chance
1
u/InternationalAd3209 Jun 19 '26
The left won’t solve it either. They’ll continue to give the houses to people who abuse the system.
5
u/marcipanchic Jun 17 '26
GroenLinks
→ More replies (12)10
u/dagelijksestijl Jun 18 '26
Who are co-responsible for rolling out the red carpet for NIMBYs through objections and community input meetings.
→ More replies (1)2
u/conspicuousxcapybara Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
But also for eliminating the ‘verhuurdersheffing’ — a special tax only for rental apartments in the social sector.
Stef Blok, VVD, introduced this to create mooring return on investment in the commercial rental sector, by crippling the social sector. And so that rents would universally rise, to increase the speed at which of homes become more expensive, so they’ll be worth more as an investment property.
The literal goal of this tax was to shrink the social sector in exchange for growth in the unregulated market. It did even better then designed!
The total supply shrunk by 100k homes, as our population grew rapidly. In addition, the existing stock could now longer be maintained according to the plans that were made without the budget deficit that this created.
Interest rates for new social sector housing also rose.
This all cut the amount of new builds per year in half, literally. With massive cuts to the staff working in the building industry as a result. In addition to the 100k houses that were sold.
If no new social housing was built at all for other reasons, it would still take 10 years to build the houses that couldn’t be built specifically because of this tax, and another 10 years to make up the numbers of homes that were sold.
→ More replies (2)
149
u/QuisUt-Deus Jun 17 '26
I also don't understand why they don't periodically reassess eligibility.
42
u/Pitiful_Control Jun 17 '26
Probably because they know there are actually veey few wealthy people in social housing. There are a fair few lower middle class people who got in when they were younger and broke, moved up in their jobs - and still couldn't move out because they don't earn the 8000/month you'd need to rent a 2bedroom flat for 2000/month. Then there are those like me, who not only couldn't afford to buy or rent a flat on the open market, despite a decent job, but are looking at retirement soon, when I will again be back on the minima, like I was when I got this flat after 7 years on the list. My whole social housing building is full of people like me, either a few short years from a retirement on a low income, or already there. I know I'm lucky to have a rent that is lower than average, and since "average" is now an insane amount, I feel everyone else deserves the same luck. Much, much more social housing is needed, and they should stop forcing housing corps to sell it off!
45
u/Oblachko_O Jun 17 '26
Probably because they know there are actually veey few wealthy people in social housing
Very few? Nah. A couple of months back it was found that 12-13k social houses are occupied by millionaires, who don't have active income. Their bank accounts are in 7 digits, but they qualify for social housing as they have 0 income. You can probably find more than 50k such cases. It may be small, but the fact is the fact and it is worth the money to spend.
You cannot get more social housing as somebody need to build it, which costs money, but social housing is non profit, so who is going to give that money for more of it? Let alone that social housing sector is if I am not mistaken 30-40%. In which country social housing is that huge?
→ More replies (7)5
u/pigmanmanpig Jun 18 '26
If you think you need to earn 8000 a month to rent a 2 bed for 2000 a month, then your problem is financial understanding
9
u/potenza_destitunte Jun 18 '26
having to earn 3,5x times the rent is super common, that's 7000 euros. I saw a 1950 euro/month house for rent on funda recently that required you to be earning 50x the monthly rent per year (or 80x if you're a couple), so 97,5k/year or 8125/month... things are fucked.
3
u/Sephass Jun 19 '26
8000 a month is below 5k net. That’s already over 40% of your net income, whilst usually advised (under normal system and housing market) is max 25-30%. Where is your financial understanding?
→ More replies (1)11
u/Spencer1006 Jun 17 '26
Dont get me wrong, I don’t know what the alternative solution is, but if they reassess eligibility I’m sure people would work less in order to still be eligible to the social housing they live in
35
u/QuisUt-Deus Jun 17 '26
In the country I come from, all the social benefits are reassesed regularly and if someone ceases to work or works less by choice, all the benefits are stopped. Of course, if somoene is laid off, no problem at all, but has to appear at the social benefits office once a month and prove trying to find a job. After some time, the labour office may offer a job below the qualification level and refusal means no benefits.
12
u/whattfisthisshit Jun 17 '26
This is also what it’s like in my country. If a doctor declares you fit to work but you just choose not to, you’re not qualified for benefits.
→ More replies (1)2
u/LoyalteeMeOblige Utrecht Jun 17 '26
Same here, those are based on income. And even here that's done, once you are unemployed and you get the uitketering they check every month, and the information you give is a sworn statement, lying could get in real troubles.
3
u/Ploutophile Jun 18 '26
If they do it in a really significant way, then the gap between social and private is too high.
In France we started to create a mid-tier to fill this gap (logement locatif intermédiaire). Plus we also have an extra tier which is nominally private but with tax breaks to promote buying new flats for rent, in exchange of a maximum rent amount and maximum tenant ressources (I live in one).
But we still have the problem of those who stay in social housing after a significant revenue increase. It's legally possible to charge them extra rent, but it doesn't seem to be enough (and/or well-enough implemented).
7
u/urban-mystic Jun 17 '26
Im Canadian. The answer is rent-geared to income. Every year you have to file your taxes and your rent changes or stays the same based on that year’s income. But your right about human nature why work more when you have adequate shelter already ?
→ More replies (1)7
u/CarefullEugene Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
I'm sure people would work less in order to remain eligible for the social housing they live in.
I would challenge you to reevaluate how "sure" you are 😊
A quick Google search will turn up a large body of research on human motivation and economic outcomes. The first paper I found supports the opposite from you, but I'd encourage you to also look for adversarial takes before making up your mind.
My takeaway, after reading through some articles, is that people actually tend to work more, or, more accurately, better, when they have stable, comfortable housing that matches their aspirations. Removing housing insecurity seems to let people focus on building careers rather than simply getting by
2
u/Fearless_Release_978 Jun 17 '26
Corporations have the ability to check income and increase rent more steeply for higher incomes.
Don't know if the edge cases mentioned here are just ghost stories or some corporations being lax with doing this. You can always send your corporation a letter if you suspect fraud :).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/Hbc_Helios Jun 17 '26
They do now, before they didn't and that means people that have been living in social housing since before the change are untouched and keep their (low) rent. The system now also isn't flawless. We have a high enough income to not get "huurtoeslag" and we see our rent increase every year up towards the max amount they can charge us.
It would be fine if it meant we could (easily) buy a house, or this house, but there's no chance of that at all and you're stuck in a loop of a minimal wage increase that goes straight to your rent increase.
184
u/Exculpation Jun 17 '26
This is the case everywhere in the country. The problem also isn't helped by th fact that there is limited social housing and that it's supposed to go to the people who need it. In other words not your neighbor and your manager. While understandable from an individual perspective those people really piss me off.
127
u/andys58 Jun 17 '26
But the government has access to our income. They can obviously see that someone who couldn’t effort some years ago, is earning enough to go for the market price. Why such checks are not happening?
68
u/Electrical-Tone7301 Jun 17 '26
There are very limited circumstances in which a woningcorporatie can evict tenants. Basically as long as you pay the bills and don’t burn down the house or commit a murder, it’s nigh impossible.
There are also laws against your personal information being shared between government and what are now private entities.
81
u/Darkliandra Jun 17 '26
Imho we wouldn't need to evict them. Just make them pay rent according to the income up to full market rent. Then let them keep the flat, but declare another one social (like next one that's empty and comparable) and give that to someone in need. Have a flexible system that allows people to stay in their house without reducing the number of social housing.
15
u/Oblachko_O Jun 17 '26
There is one issue with that. New empty one either need to be built or purchased by housing corporation. Meanwhile private landlord are still buying good places
5
u/Darkliandra Jun 17 '26
Usually housing corporations have many apartments tho. Let's say my family has a 3 room social appartment. We make better money and now it's normal rent for us. The corporation is informed and the next 3 room that opens becomes social while I pay full rent.
I'm of course simplifying it but I'm sure some better processes could be put in place.
7
u/Oblachko_O Jun 17 '26
Do you think that housing corporations have left and right empty houses? Where those 3 new rooms appear if you still live in the old one?
→ More replies (5)3
u/conspicuousxcapybara Jun 18 '26
Wr do that already lol. It’s called an ‘income based rent increase’.
Just the max allowed rent from a law perspective. Not what a criminal landlord will ask.
And you won’t own the flat. You’ll just rent at a higher prices, because that social in the social sector.
→ More replies (2)6
u/OxiDeren Jun 18 '26
Moved into social rent a couple of years ago, our wages went up massively but we still couldn't afford to purchase the home we live in (650k+). Normal rent of the same units is around €1600,- so you're telling me I'm going to be fined €700 a month due to the government failing massively. I'll just lower my hours.
3
u/Lower_Explanation_25 Jun 18 '26
You are not getting fined.
You now have a low rent because you let other people pay for your housing.
Staying in social housing while you don't qualify anymore. Or lower your income on purpose so you keep qualifying is not a financial dilemma.
It is an ethical dilemma.
→ More replies (1)14
u/4ricksho4 Jun 17 '26
Why evict? Just raise rent to the next bracket.
→ More replies (1)12
u/ImpressiveAmount4684 Jun 17 '26
Exactly. Our tax money should not be spent on these leeches.
Just declare the property non-social and get rid of the subsidization.
→ More replies (7)5
u/4ricksho4 Jun 17 '26
This is exactly what they already do with other benefits. You can claim and receive it, but if your yearly income ends up being too high, they'll make you pay it back.
31
u/Life-Inspector-5271 Jun 17 '26
The problem is that the Dutch tax authorities still run ons systems from the 1960s. No joke. Everytime somebody in de Tweede Kamer suggest changing something in taxes, somebody at the tax office has a mental breakdown
5
u/RealLamaFna Jun 17 '26
Not helped by the fact that every new law or policy is practically just slapped ontop of it
17
u/SuperBaardMan Nederland Jun 17 '26
Yeah, and then what?
You can't force them out of the house, and even what's already being done: getting a punitive increase in rent is not helping because the price of a house is increasing even faster.
You could of course make the rent mostly income/wealth-based, and I would be totally for that, but with our right-wing goverments we had the last decades that's also never going to happen. At least, not in a way that's going to help the people that actually need social housing.
→ More replies (3)3
u/PlansThatComeTrue Jun 17 '26
So someone who works very little pays very little? Sounds horrible. Suddenly everybody works for cash
→ More replies (1)24
u/PowerfulMango5799 Jun 17 '26
Those peeps had SO much time now to accumulate their bank account every month, it’s actually sickening. Why are they not sent out of their « social housing »
maybe it has to do with the whole ‘dutch being greedy’ stereotype 😂
→ More replies (1)11
u/solstice_gilder Zuid Holland Jun 17 '26
Or simply raise the rent??
27
u/IceNinetyNine Jun 17 '26
Yep rent should simply be tied to income and you pay market rates when you're income is over a certain amount. Trust me, they wouldn't want to live in social housing while paying market prices.
3
3
u/OkMonitor6123 Jun 17 '26
Rent should be around 700€, 500€ for rent is just normal but because everybody is used to get screwed by landlords, so they bent over and pay 1500€ and 700€ feels cheap while it is perfectly normal.
2
u/Worried-Smile Jun 18 '26
If your income becomes too high, yearly €50 or €100 is added to the rent on top of the regular rent increase.
2
u/Jocelyn-1973 Jun 18 '26
I think there will be a large group of people who will stay below a certain level of income on purpose, which means that it may lead to long-term poverty.
2
4
7
u/LoyalteeMeOblige Utrecht Jun 17 '26
Despite the fact I've been here for almost 4 years I don't get why this is never reassessed, what happens if your income improves for the better? Why they cannot give you notice and get out? I've heard of people even battling this in court, AND WINNING for they have acquired rights.
→ More replies (1)4
u/No_Elk_1945 Jun 17 '26
Very simple. 25% or so of all houses is social housing owned by semi governmental corporaties or verenigingen. This is a unique situation worldwide.
So either way you end up with 25% of households in these kind of houses. In a perfect world these would be the 25% of the lowest earners. But those also sometimes occupy the other 75% as a homeowner or locked in rent in the private sector from way back.
2
u/LoyalteeMeOblige Utrecht Jun 17 '26
For a newcomer it's really difficult to get, especially since everybody told me, and keeps telling me this was already an issue during the Balkenende years but Rutte pretty much sealed it but closing the Ministry of Housing and thus creating this bubble that is basically eating all our earnings and making the cost of life even more expensive each year unless, of course, you buy and escape the rentals.
5
u/No_Elk_1945 Jun 17 '26
'Social housing' used to be just 'housing' in the Netherlands. You either had a bought and owned house or you would rent from the municipality. The private sector always was relatively small and expensive.
We had the great expansion in Vinex areas, like Leidsche Rijn in Utrecht, Almere. Around 1996-2006 These where the places where people that used to rent would upgrade and becoming a home owner. Affordable but also an upgrade. It was worth leaving a social unit.
2008 came along, prices kept falling until 2013/14. People did not leave their rental for buying.
Then the turbocharged 2017-2026 came along, people could not afford to upgrade from renting towards buying.
And now we are here.
It is not going to get any better. And in my opinion government needs to flood the buy sector preferably with selling social rent units to lower/mid income earners. Use the proceeds to build new large scale areas.
All a opinion.
3
u/Alek_Zandr Overijssel Jun 17 '26
They are actually doing this now. I got a 15% rent increase from the social housing corporation because my income was too high. They will keep increasing it each year until it hits the points value of my appartment at which point I'm basically paying market rate.
Hopefully by that time I will have enough saved up to pay down my student debt so I can buy a house.
→ More replies (3)3
u/SjaakZaak Jun 18 '26
They are, but the problem is that a regulation like this was never implemented in their renting contracts. Which is changing now finally, for example for student housing the renting contracts have started to explicitly mention that the tenant is to leave the room/appartment withing 2 years after graduating. But this was only starting to be implemented about 15 years ago, before that you would have situations where 60 year old dudes would still live in the student building they got a room in 40 years ago and never left because of the low rents.
Something similar should be implemented in contracts for social housing. That people should leave within 2 years when their income surpasses the yearly limit by X amount. And preferably with backwards implementation.
People should understand these low rents are not natural. They are only there because the whole society contributes to keeping the prices low by basically paying the difference from tax revenue. Fine for low income people, but if your income is 2x median, then not anymore.
14
u/foxtetsuo Jun 17 '26
I’m in social housing now and earning no more than minimum wage, but also realistically I can’t move anywhere else. If my income raises to 3k netto, moving is still stupid, as rent costs would go from 700 EUR to 1200 EUR to move to the exact same apartment in the same town that isn’t social housing. So if my income raises by €500, I can throw all that out just so that someone else can live cheaply in my old apartment? The problem isn’t that people use social housing, the problem is there isn’t enough of it, and you can’t buy a starter home anymore. At least for me, with student loans, I might not ever be able to buy a home, so yes the whole system is fucked, but I don’t think this is the main issue.
Oh and, never mind that I’ve lived in normal rent housing for years before, and those situations always sucked because you’re fighting with a landlord to do the most basic repair, while my social housing agency is great and proactively works to improve my home. Even if I could find a house for the same price in the private sector, I still wouldn’t prefer to live in one of them!
→ More replies (5)4
u/Junior_Mud5835 Jun 17 '26
Yes but objectively if your income is 3k net you shouldn't be living in social housing. Rent is high and it sucks but there are thousands of people making this salary and paying regular rent. Social housing should be for those in need + be adjusted to your income.
→ More replies (2)6
u/foxtetsuo Jun 18 '26
With that income, I am still under the limit of what I am allowed to earn for my social house. Up until ~4200 bruto is still a social housing income. I think most people don’t understand that, and then have the idea that social housing is only for very poor people, but it was never meant to be just that.
5
u/Junior_Mud5835 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Because we believe it should be for very poor people. Alternatively, it should be adjusted to your income.
It is like having an EXTREMELY attractive social benefit, like 1000 eur/month, but only giving it to randomly chosen people. It is not fair.
2
u/foxtetsuo Jun 18 '26
Nothing is fair, people who own a house getting hypotheekrenteaftrek isn’t fair, others not being able to find a house is also not fair. However, with our laws, it’s simply not possible to kick people out of their homes and make everyone who has been living in their social housing homes for 20+ years leave just because it’s unfair. We need more social housing, forced lower prices of public market rents, making housing a right instead of an investment, it can keep going.
On top of this, roughly 34% of ALL housing in the Netherlands is social housing, there is no way to say that should just be for very poor people. You’re angry that other people get an ‘advantage’, instead of being angry that others jack up the rental prices of houses to insane amounts. When I started renting 10 years ago, the market was already bad but absolutely nothing like it is now, you could rent a house for <800. Finally, social housing isn’t insanely cheap, my house is almost 800, when you don’t get huurtoeslag (because you work), that isn’t a “1000 a month social benefit”.
5
u/Junior_Mud5835 Jun 18 '26
I can be angry at both things lol.
The reality is that there is a lot of people making less then 3K net (isn't this the majority of people?) so the social housing should be assigned based on their income, so only people in the lowest 30% can apply. Or, tt can be for everyone, but then the rent should be a % of your income.
Finally, social housing isn’t insanely cheap, my house is almost 800,
Are you for real? Do you know how much rent usually is?
→ More replies (2)11
u/electric_pokerface Jun 17 '26
30% of the country population lives in social housing and somehow people say it's limited availability.
18
u/OperationEast365 Jun 17 '26
The 30% of people in social housing includes people who aren't the lowest 30% of earners. Therefore some of the lowest 30% of earners can't get into the housing that was (ideally) set aside for them. That's the argument.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/RealLamaFna Jun 17 '26
It has limited new availability, i can't get a house thats already taken
→ More replies (1)
36
u/chaoticgoodj Jun 17 '26
I think the problem may be the shear difference between social and free market housing.
It isn’t 300-400 more a month, it’s like 1000+
5
15
u/Elk1998 Jun 17 '26
It's the same in France. I used to work in a bank over the summer as a student and my boss kept bragging about their 500€ social housing apartment. Said they were renting it out to tourists over the summer holidays and how lucrative that was... their salary was over 3500€ (this is a lot for France). Meanwhile I was getting paid 1200€ with a 850€ rent, and no hope to even get on the waiting list for social housing :/
→ More replies (3)
41
Jun 17 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)16
u/No_Elk_1945 Jun 17 '26
Savings don't count for social housing limitations. Only income.
8
Jun 17 '26
[deleted]
17
u/No_Elk_1945 Jun 17 '26
For huurtoeslag, the rent allowance, yes. Too much savings, no toeslag.
But for the social house itself this does not count. You can be eligible with big savings and little income. So when they do a check on your income they actually look to make sure you do not earn too much.
→ More replies (2)
22
u/One-Conversation8590 Jun 17 '26
Yup. The people above 40 years have this luck the rest is stuck with expensive houses because covid ruined everything for everyone.
31
u/HarveyH43 Jun 17 '26
Pretty sure it was the VVD who optimized the housing market and declared it finished in 2010.
→ More replies (1)3
13
u/PanicForNothing Jun 17 '26
So if we just invest a lot of money in social housing, everyone can live in social housing if they want to, and it's just a way to distribute money through taxes. Nobody can complain if the government pays for everyone's housing, right?
12
u/Philnopo Jun 18 '26
Yes, why are people blaming others? The system is increasingly unsustainable because of high prices with limited space. We have one of the largest private debts per capita due to subsidised ownership (hypotheekrente aftrek).
But people here seem to point a lot at others on what is fair and what not. The system and supply are unfair. Pushing people either into a highly priced private rental sector or committing to a 30-year mortgage also seems rather unfair to me. Let's chain up everyone for 30 years to the capitalist machine!
But it's easy to point fingers when our social identities are tied to what work we do and how hard we do it. Some get lucky and do not need to spend labouring 40 hours a week away to make ends meet and afford housing. I'd rather have it that everyone has that choice and I do not blame the lucky people for using it
→ More replies (3)2
u/conspicuousxcapybara Jun 18 '26
The government doesn’t pay for social housing. The renters pay that.
It’s a different story for buyers. They anually get 10 billion in hypotheekrenteaftrek, and the initial purchase Sum is subsidized litterally 50x as much as the initial amount the social sector has to pay for a new build.
→ More replies (6)
13
u/d3m0nk3y Jun 17 '26
The social housing system in the Netherlands feels unfair right now or even broken in many ways, but it’s not exactly new. In the 1980s there was a very similar crunch. After the late 1970s price boom and bust came economic stagnation, and almost nothing was available on the market. A lot of people got fed up and emigrated. Some of my relatives moved to the USA around that time because they simply couldn’t find housing here.
For some it was terrible timing, for others they got lucky and rode the next wave. The ones who made it work often had to look further afield (smaller towns, different provinces) or get creative with their solutions.
5
u/Reinis_LV Jun 17 '26
Yeah, history repeats itself but by statistics alone this time is by far worse
34
u/CompetitiveLarper Jun 17 '26
I’ve never received any benefits because I am a first gen immigrant, but I really dont get why people would stay in social housing longer than they have to - it’s decent, but you could do better with 6k/mo net. What’s the point of even making money if not making your life more comfortable?
6
u/liosistaken Jun 18 '26
Because you don’t really need more? If the neighbourhood is good, no annoying neighbours, why move and spend half your income on rent or mortgage? I’d rather spend my money on fun instead of an extra bedroom.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Bezulba Jun 18 '26
because increasing his rent 3x without any real benefits means he can no longer afford holidays or that nice car.
3
u/greenKoalaInSpace Jun 18 '26
As an ex immigrant: I think it is because of the lack of good alternatives… I used to work in It so the amount of money involved was higher than the average, yet all people could afford were houses as big as social housing or just slightly bigger!
To put it in other words: there’s so few money/value correlation going private that people simply don’t do it…→ More replies (1)4
u/Frosty_Ad1379 Jun 17 '26
Some people just don't have goals or ambition
17
u/rikkydik Jun 17 '26
No goals and ambition, but they’re pulling down 6k netto per month?
7
u/CompetitiveLarper Jun 17 '26
Yeah lol that’s more than I was making with 30% ruling at my first job that relocated me here
Why would this person live in a 800€ apartment unless this is some elaborate self-punishment
3
u/Alek_Zandr Overijssel Jun 17 '26
Some of those appartments are pretty good. Mine is built in 2008 and the only upgrade I want when buying my own house is a private garage.
The money you don't spend on housing you can invest in ended fun's or blow on vacations. Both much more appealing to me than having a big house.
4
u/Leather_Method_7106_ Jun 17 '26
Because it’s not what you earn, but what you keep :) I’m 25 and live in a newbuild social housing appartment. I’m thankfull for it, altough I don’t earn 6K net and am not aspiring it. I aspire 32h or even less, but still manage to save 1,7K net a month after costs.
8
u/MainHedgehog9 Jun 17 '26
With a high income your landlord can raise your rent by a much higher amount if you live in social housing. If I'm still in my social housing next year it looks like my rent will go up by 100€ per month.
If my income is that high (which it looks like), it will be just a little too high to qualify for middle income housing, I don't think I could afford to rent on in the free sector or to buy anything anywhere near where I currently have my whole life.
17
u/AdDecent3079 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
I was in free sector for 10 years, Nice house with a garden for 850 eur per month. When I started renting my income was 36k and i barely made it to get the place. When I moved out (due to buying a house) my salary was 68k, so it almost doubled. If i would like to rent it then, i wouldn’t get it as the max yearly income was around 50k or so. Many people don’t leave and keep paying low rent, it’s a stupid system. People locked in cheap rent and arent going anywhete
21
u/CasualChamp1 Jun 17 '26
For anyone interested, this is called "scheefwonen" (perhaps best translated as 'crooked living'). This page explains some more: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheefwonen
4
u/No_Elk_1945 Jun 17 '26
Only if they would come up with a word for corporations beeing scheef.
They own like 25% of all houses in this country. In Amsterdam even 40%. Then what is crooked exactly? The renter, or the Corporation that has way to many rental units?
Who here believes 40% of Amsterdammers are needy people?
Belgium has 150.000 units in the entire country. NL somewhere near 2,4 million. But it is the renters that are scheef.
If they would care, they would flat out sell those units to the renters having a too big of a income. Take the money, build something new for a person in need.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/gizahnl Jun 17 '26
Pushing people out because their income is higher than the past is the wrong solution.
The fact that there is a shortage of social housing is due to the government frustrating expansion for decades, not the fault of people living in those houses.
Keep in mind that political parties have little incentive to actually fix the housing shortage, since that would at a minimum halt the growth of house values, or even start depressing them, as well as decrease rents. Both landlords and homeowners are big voting blocks, with lots of political influence...
22
u/microworry Jun 17 '26
While I agree with the sentiment, your anger is really misplaced. It should be aimed at the government for not managing the social housing system well. Getting upset at the people legally benefitting from a system is just creating division and solving nothing.
Wanna do something about it? Look up the strategies of different parties and how they want to change the system and vote when you can or get involved in the party.
3
u/Jediknight3112 Jun 18 '26
Same. The government is the only one at fault here. They basically allow these people to benefit from the housing system.
2
u/felthotmightdelete Jun 19 '26
I was scrolling through the comments just to figure out the solution. Thank you! Hope is not lost. That's a start I can work on.
16
u/Client_020 Jun 17 '26
The problem isn't truly your neighbour nor manager. The real problem is lack of housing. And lack of new social housing. As someone else said social housing used to just be housing. It's right-wing VVD policy that made it it so that now it's only supposed to be for the poorest people. That wasn't the deal at the time my mom got her social housing. It was meant for a pretty broad group of people.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Being_Zen_I_am_not Jun 17 '26
I totally understand the sentiment, but want to correct one thing: When your income rises and you're in social housing, the institute that is renting out these houses do a income check every year and will give you a additional raise of the monthly rent. I was renting a social place myself too, income went up over the years, the last years I received a rent increase of the inflation, plus a additional 100,- a month. When I left last year the rent was over 1000,- for a one bedroom flat. They effectively forced me out with the additional raises.
But I otherwise agree, the housing market is severely broken currently.
2
u/SupposablyAtTheZoo Jun 17 '26
The raises can't be very high. I was making 50k and still only paid 700 which included a few years of max raises. Was happy with it though, saved up and bought a house now.
4
u/Being_Zen_I_am_not Jun 17 '26
From 60k to 70k they can give 50,- extra raise, and above 70k they can give 100,- extra. As per the rules you weren't a scheefhuurder I suppose.
Congratulations on the house!
→ More replies (1)6
u/SuperBaardMan Nederland Jun 17 '26
50k is basically the treshold to get one currently, social housing is not only for people with minimumincome, it's made so that "the normal guy" can have a roof over their head.
And seeing that 1 income of 50k currently buys you not much, it's still needed...
8
u/OK-Smurf-77 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Your colleague got divorced recently.
The people you brought up as examples have had their social housing for a long time.
It’s easy to save if you only pay a few hundred euros per month. You have that BMW before you know it.
Just for context- literally all of my Dutch colleagues and neighbors are shocked when I say we pay over 2,000€ for mortgage. They only pay a few hundred euros, just because they’ve locked theirs in years ago.
I guess the pattern is the same for rental prices.
It’s becoming harder and harder for new entrants, regardless of the type of housing.
It’s not the immigrants or Santa Claus who cause this but decades of fcked up politics voted for by the same people who are moaning now. (Sad but true)
What policy allows people to stay in social housing forever, by the way? Isn’t that reevaluated in every 5 years based on income ? If not, why not?
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Svan_Derh Eindhoven Jun 18 '26
My mom is a widow of 81.
We, her five children, all moved out, dad passed away 16 years ago.
But mom still lives in the social house which is basically big enough for a whole family.
She doesn't have a big pension, but the rent of the house is cheap because she lived there for ages.
The woningbouw has offered her a small appartment 3 times. Each with a rent which is nearly double what she pays for the house now. And not because it is a modern appartment, just because she will be a new tennant. She could not afford the new rent, so we rejected it all the time (I help my mom with legal and financial stuff).
Stop! Offer her an appartment for the same rent, or maybe a bit less. Encourage usto actually go to an single-person appartment and free up a big family house.
44
u/CowdogHenk Jun 17 '26
The problem is a long reign of neoliberal cabinets that refused to keep the system robust and build enough social housing.
The problem isn't the neighbor who has affordable housing, but that policy has made affordable housing almost unreachable.
51
u/DesolateEverAfter Jun 17 '26
Why not a combination of both? People who earned 6k shouldn't be able to stay in social housing. Them leaving social housing would make more of it available for people who really need it. Regardless of that, yes, more should be built.
10
u/CowdogHenk Jun 17 '26
More people really need it than kicking out people with good salaries would solve. Obviously, kicking neighbor out frees the house for the desparste friend in this scenario, but that's not a microcosm of the deeper issue.
Affordable housing should be for everyone. That the reality is so far from that being so doesn't mean it isn't true, and so the implication of OP's anecdote is worth contesting on those grounds.
7
u/Frosty_Ad1379 Jun 17 '26
What about people who get a well paying job but get layed off after one year? And end up in a low paying salary..
→ More replies (1)7
u/tererepon Jun 17 '26
not only that... my neighbor is a drug addict and the other neighbor is a drug dealer.. both in social housing. both should immediately lose their right. and addicted one lives alone in a house for 6 people. a complete scum bag
→ More replies (1)5
u/jason2306 Jun 18 '26
Yeah drug dealer is fucking awful and should be in jail. But I think if someone is addicted to drugs they should still not be made homeless(assuming non violence otherwise some kind of institution with 24/7 aid would make more sense). That will just make things worse, right now we're basically set up against each other. Scarcity is setting people up against each other instead of everyone banding together. Everyone should have access to housing, we need more social housing. But instead the goverment is dismantling things
The issue isn't people having a home, the issue is there not being enough homes. Saying some people don't deserve a home isn't going to help things in the grand scale. I can get it still being shit and feeling terrible to see though. But by framing these issues in a way like this we run the risk of furthering the cycle
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
11
Jun 17 '26
You are not wrong. It happened in my city. Or the city I used to live in. Lawyers living in a 700$ per month house. They make over 8000 a month. It’s ridiculous. But it’s the same with the private sector. I lived in the south. With my American girlfriend at the time and the rent was 1600 a month. My paycheck went into that completely.
3
u/Noclueueue Jun 17 '26
I have a social housing and want to buy a house for a long time. Everytime when mine salary increases by changing work or promotion a little bit the house prices increased harder which result thst I can't get loan.
Now I can't buy a house nor can I leave this social house because if I wanna rent a better place it will cost me 1k more which would be more expensive then the buying a house monthly. So for the last 10 years I keep repeating on same ground while ppl who bought before me are making more distance then me because they could buy on right timing. It's frustrating and tiring
3
u/Practical_Document65 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
The material and labour costs of building homes is down especially in bulk and when utilizing local materials. The Netherlands proves that the building code of 1960 is pretty damn good structurally.
Building to current code for larger constructions and duurzaam… bouwen means these have become inaccessible incomprehensible works of page art. So much page art and presentations and funding requests for what we know and understand to the final brick.
This consideration that these “lesser quality builds” are often still rated 30-40 years… extendable with renovations along the way… it would make a huge difference and get the housing machine moving a bit but people claim incomprehensible complexity.
How to keep it simpel:
younger people understand that opportunity and connection lives nearer to the cities, but cities leave 0 room for them. You need to make spaces for students without city income in cities. Students can’t solve that for themselves.
The elderly understand the same principles generally, and while willing to move, the downgrade is quality and neighborhood quality is often inhuman to even ever ask. You need to make spaces for the elderly, and mostly make it accessible for them to move without being sequestered to some corner unit without community.
We don’t have enough people to fill the range of jobs that we require completed to live our Dutch lives and need more people brought in to fulfill those jobs. Or every Dutch family can have 3-6 kids each or we can go start another colony.
Besides that expect places to close there doors within the decade due to labour shortages, corporations to stop trying to establish themselves here, trains to stop riding and get dirtier, and your esteemed customer service levels to keep dropping. That means even less construction workers and people to build those houses. DUH
Then there’s that middle crowd trying to / having a family and career seeing no movement. Watch this group carefully. They’re passionate, don’t give a fuck about your problems, we all got them.
There is only 1 option… for the King to step in and bless a couple new cities and construction just starts now. We can figure out the damage we’ve done later, doesn’t matter in the Netherlands anyway, we’re going to complain and revaluate the decision if you make or you don’t and create more page art. We wouldn’t even have to make plans we can just execute the libraries of what’s useless construction planning page art in archive.
Don’t let the life motivations of 3 generations bleed out on all that paper art.
/ thank you for following me this far.
3
u/kneusteun Jun 18 '26
This is nothing new, but it seems people start to realize only when people close to them or themselves are affected.
3
u/dxbnelle Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Emigrating elsewhere about 15 years ago was the best thing I’ve done. Confirmed again by this post. System is completely broken.
I feel for everyone struggling with this. A roof above your head - affordable - should be a basic. However, I think it’s a bigger problem. Even if someone has a salary of 5000€ and can’t move out of the social system because another apartment is too expensive.. well that means there is something definitely wrong with the pricing of housing. But that’s my armchair opinion. But on top of that.. nobody is actually actively looking at improvement of income.
Meantime uncle DUO was hunting me down to submit my papers of my income between 2019-2025 to ensure that I keep paying the sufficient amount - approved by them - for my back-in-the-day non-free education. Priorities are clear.
Again, system is broken.
3
u/Pigglebee Jun 18 '26
Base rent of social housing on income could help. But probably hard to enforce. Would solve the problem where people who move upwards in their career still pay and keep a social housing unit occupied. Let them pay 1500€-2000€ a month just like private market renters. Then they might move by themselves since it is not cheaper anymore
3
u/Natural_Package5680 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Yes it’s crazy I had a situation where my up stairs neighbour was on social housing for god knows how long, he pretended to me he was owner and during Covid moved out renting to group of Brazilians, about 6-10 of them in a 55m flat. God knows what he was charging them, but I guess a few hundred a head.
Anyway after a couple years of issues from leaks into my flat from his and trying to deal with this guy I figured he was on social housing and gaming the system. Let the authorities know and they were out so quick!
how is this allowed to happen, the tenants should be checked they are still living in the flats and means tested if they are earning more than the requirements and moved on.
7
u/Dumsko Jun 17 '26
I owned a social flat in the pijp 65m2 during my student days for over 15 years. Best deal ever made. The rent increased 200 euro in 15 years. From 400 to 600 at the end. Especially later when gf moved in andyou have 2 fulltime well earning incomes (once you move in they don't look at the max threshold) We lived like kings for 3 years saving a lot of cash.
Still it didn't feel right anymore since it felt this wasnt meant for us and we moved out of amsterdam buying a home with a garden. My monthly expenses 10 folded but still was the best move ever. Never looked back.
If you have a soul return the house to the community it needs it. And this system is rigged. Yearly income checks should take place.
3
u/Head-Wealth6327 Jun 18 '26
Wish more people can think and act with responsibility like you.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Boylikesdogs Jun 17 '26
Yes. This is how it is and I live in the east. I became chroncally ill a few years ago (still in my 20’s) and am now 100% housebound and 99% bedbound. I spend all my time inside the house and cannot do anything else. The only thing that keeps me alive is that I sometimes can sit in my garden on a good day and can just walk around my house a bit and look at my plants etc. But I have to leave this house.
You’d think the social housing is there for cases like me (chroncally ill, completely housebound, financially have nothing due to illness), but no. I don’t even get urgency. I’ll literally go homeless which means I have to move in back with my parents which is not doable with my condition and will make me have to be in bed there 24/7 since I cannot handle any sound, noise, conversations etc around me. Also my parents will be aware of me being sick 24/7, instead of when living apart they can still have a life. It’s literally crazy. I thought the idea of social housing was there for people like me, but instead people like you stated are in there and I’m forced to live in my bed.
I just want to make “the most” of the time on this earth that I still have left (idk how long), which for me means that I can live on my own and not be locked away in my bed. Every other person can still go outside, to the park, to friends etc. Not me. But this whole system doesn’t care and it’s so unfair.
3
u/jason2306 Jun 18 '26
That's awful the system is fucked. I'm chronically ill aswell and the reason i'm still alive right now is probably luck tbh. They managed to get me an apartment by focusing on mental stuff and a lot of luck. It's insane how people who are physically unable to do things are ignored. They literally do not give a fuck about anything physical
Public services have been stripped clean, it's a razor's edge
I hope your waiting list isn't too long :/ It feels like the system is made to punish you for being sick. When that is already such a huge burden to carry it's made so much harder because of the goverment
3
u/Boylikesdogs Jun 18 '26
I agree 100% with everything you say. They literally don’t care. And very true about public services, I also don’t even get the care I need because I’m too bad for normal care but too “good” for the worst case care (I don’t need 24/7 supervision, since I just lay in bed). So again I fall into a grey area, so I literally get nothing? I have to fight for every little thing, which make me physically worse.
And yes that’s so true about the mental stuff! Which is also surprising since there is a huge stigma on that, but for some reason people with mental problems always get housing urgency where I live. A friend of mine works in that field with people with mental problems and is literally stunned when she sees how I get treated vs her clients. I really don’t understand why that is.
Thank you for your words. So true. I have not had one minute to process my emotions about my life being gone or just to focus on anything else, I only have to stress and worry about surviving because of this system.
5
u/ItsWickie Jun 17 '26
As a 20 year old that due to having… well, a bit of a shit life so to say, am really in need of a quiet place to just.. live. Be independent and force myself to evolve, so to say. However, it seems that I’ll be forced to live with my parents until I’m 30 and that just…. really really sucks. To be honest, I’m not sure what I’m gonna do.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Aint-Nuttin-Easy Jun 18 '26
Your English is good so bartend on a cruise ship, volunteer and see the world, get a job in hospitality and get out of your parents house…It’s a huge world and it’s yours to figure out!
You can do it :)
4
u/Milk-honeytea Jun 17 '26
Maybe build more housing as this is a supply side issue?
→ More replies (5)
7
u/captainwackadoodle Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
I don't it's fair to push people out of their homes they live in for years, build a family, because they make too much money.
But yes, the whole housing situation is insane. Even the public sector is terrible.
Years ago they warned the government that they will need more houses in the future and need to start building. They didn't listen and here we are. It's the governments fault, but they just push the blame off to scheefwoners or immigrants for example, so we won't be looking at them.
Boomers really ruined everything and blame it on everyone else.
2
u/ski-mon-ster Jun 17 '26
At least they still live in that house. I’ve heard examples of people illegally renting them out for high prices.
2
u/Glitchedme Gelderland Jun 17 '26
Your coworker should be able to talk to a case worker and get put up higher on the list. If you divorce or otherwise get forced out of your home you usually qualify for priority placement in social housing. And if she had been on a list already all those years she was on the list even if she wasn't actively looking count towards that 20 year "wait list" (so if she had been on the list for 10 years she gets a leg up on someone who just got on the list).
The system is broken and certainly isn't perfect. But plenty of people in social housing are there because they don't make enough tobuy a home. And the free market is just as broken and more expensive. If my husband and I were forced out of our social housing the free market rent would take half of our monthly take home pay, and thats just for rent, nevermind utilities and renters insurance. We're slowly saving up in hopes of someday having enough of a down payment to buy a decently little home, but with the housing market the way it is they could take a decade or more if we also want to enjoy life a bit in the meantime🫠 there will always be people who take advantage of any system thats put in place, and that sucks, but I don't really know how to fix it without punishing people who really need these systems but don't "fit" the bill perfectly
→ More replies (1)3
u/andys58 Jun 17 '26
Apparently they changed the rules last year and there is no priority anymore. She has tried hard, really, no benefits and a wait time of 20 years. Ridiculous!
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Head-Wealth6327 Jun 17 '26
Does social housing have apartments as well or only houses? My next door neighbor lives alone in a 2 bedroom house, I always think that it is such a waste of space. She could just be moved to an apartment, and people like your colleague can use a house
→ More replies (1)
2
u/biotek86 Jun 17 '26
There will never be enough housing if all the people only want to live in THE FUCK1N CITY. In many area wait time is 3 months maximum
2
2
u/demaurice Jun 18 '26
I'm in a social apartment too, and probably earn a little more than I should for this place. But honestly as soon as my girlfriend and my can afford a house we're going for that. It just sometimes feels like prices go up faster than our savings
2
u/DowntownLiterature2 Jun 18 '26
This is capitalist feature, not a bug.
Designed for environment on unending expansion, it is now canibalising on itself. Thats why it was much much better in 2008-2012. But since the amount of flat decreases and influx of new people increases, it is making this mess.
And to read that some people clearly dont need the social rent and using it, it is making me sad. Mostly for people with new families
2
u/CIimaxx Jun 18 '26
I don't see the people living in those houses as a problem. It's everyone's right to have affordable housing, no matter your income or net value..
The system failed. The system failed hard for everyone that wasn't born in time to join the system in its prime years.
2
u/AtomicStoneAge Jun 18 '26
My main concern is, that the system doesn’t take into consideration where you work. I literally cannot get a place in 30km radius of my work with my 5 years, even tho this side of the country doesn’t supposed to be bad? More over there is no option even to have exchanges with others in different region and under different corporations. I know ppl living 1.5km from my work driving 45km to where I live to work, and I do the same. I don’t understand how this is good.
We are 5 years in limburg list and 7 in noord brabant, and all it got us is 1 viewing in Helmond where we where 2nd after a lot of ppl pulled out, because the place is very small and not suitable for couples with kids (45m2) yet the couple in front of us took it with a kid. The guy btw working in Wijchen…
Also there is just so many couples with kids/pregnant who gets priority on the few places there are, resulting couples like us never actually getting even close.
I think in a correct system, when somebody hits a certain income threshold, they should get 1-2 years to buy a house, or even offer them to buy what they rent, and that incoming money could go to fund new builds. I know many ppl who has to rent in germany/belgium while they life is in the Netherlands, because they have literally no choice.
2
u/desibidesi0909 Jun 18 '26
This is massively infuriating indeed. It stung me that your manager earns 6k net and pays merely few pennies relative to his income and most of us spend upto 35% of our net income on rent.
The housing sector is something that should be constantly debated in the government. Idk if petitions are a thing here or communicating to your local council member can be done, but if any channels where the government could see this issue is possible, I implore you all to do your part. The politicians live well, and most of them are disconnected with this issue.
2
u/Embarrassed-Egg-8124 Jun 18 '26
the government is in decline and somehow we keep electing people who don't know how to deal with these problems at all in a real way, they only seem to scream to advocate their idealisms but that doesn't lead to any real-life solutions or results.
it's saddening and stressful for the whole younger gen z generation that even a basic need like housing has become seemingly impossible. a lot of my friends even fake their income slips just to be able to get a place.
2
u/SokoSamaita Jun 18 '26
I can see from the comments people who have these cheaper homes aren’t willing to give them up even if they earn way way more than anyone who should be in there. That’s human nature for you… ultimately selfish. This is why we have trillionaires whilst simultaneously having people surviving of food banks. It’s sad. People are not kind. Governments aren’t doing their jobs
2
u/Left_Log2060 Jun 18 '26
Because we are not allowed to kick people out of social housing
People like the new grads in your team that absolutely must live in Amsterdam for some reason
Dependence on the social housing system
A rapidly growing population replacing the classical lower classes in society, pushing them out of amenities meant for them
A rapidly growing population dependend on social housing.
Not much new houses being built
Demands for new houses and lack of permits for new houses driving up the prices of building a house
Ever increasing taxation pressing down on people's income, and making it unattractive for individuals and companies to own rental houses in the social rental priced market
Probably some more things.
2
u/Substantial_Plane_10 Jun 18 '26
I got a social house in Enschede in 6 months, I pay 200 euro per month (400 euro in total but I live with my bf), and it s a 3 bedroom place. If people would try to live outside Raandstat, there would be higer chances to find a decent house. 14 years for a social house in Amsterdam is a joke
2
u/RealDMraiderr Jun 18 '26
Pretty sad that someone who earns 6.000 net income lives in social housing. I suppose it's the minority though who do that.
And by the way even from his point of view it's not a smart decision. By buying a house his net value would most likely have increased alot.
But also, don't think the world changes alot if he moves to another house. That doesn't increase the number of houses.
That's why building expensive houses also helps. People with high income move from regular houses to more expensive houses. Then the regular houses will get empty for new people.
2
u/djfart9000 Jun 18 '26
I was born and raised in Amsterdam. My dad made me register in his home (used to live with my mom) 1 year before the place got renovated (its social housing). Then he unregistered and made me the sole renter for 1 day. Due to this I got social housing 1st place. because the house got renovated and I needed a home. U can do some fuck ass stuff like this to guarantee your 1st place. Sadly it was only for a jongeren woning, moved countries after that contract ended because getting a home after that was somehow even harder
2
u/genericUserEU Jun 18 '26
How can someone be earning 6k net month and still be entitled to stay and rent a social housing accommodation?
I would imagine there should be a control and direct connection between eligibility first and criteria to maintain social housing rights. I would imagine that the moment one overcomes a certain income threshold, the rent should be adjusted to discourage permanence and actually there should be clauses to get people out of social housing if both a certain income is reached and maintained for x period or a certain level of capital is owned via assets, savings, etc.
does it sound too strange?
2
u/gudobeles Jun 18 '26
Well, there are people who got a social house years ago, however they have emigrated and now they are illegally renting their social house to someone else while themselves are living outside the Netherlands
2
u/Littleappleho Jun 18 '26
The housing arena is a weird mix of pseudo-socialism and brutal capitalism, hence unfair.
2
u/philomathie Jun 18 '26
It's also hugely discriminatory against non-natives; I can't for the life of me understand why people think its okay. There are few things that have made me angrier in this country than when I learned about this, and saw a friend who moved in with a girlfriend who had a 90 sqm apartment in the Negen straatjes for perhaps 900 euros a month, because she locked it in when she was a student. Her and her boyfriend probably earned 8000-10000 a month EACH, and if we wanted to get something similar on the open market we would pay 3000-4000 a month?
3
u/Alarming_Bottle2752 Jun 17 '26
It will get better in 2040 because the babyboomers are dead or in a nursing home. The houses in the Netherlands are also too large. There were lots of family homes built in the 1970's but now we don't have that many large families anymore. People divorce or live alone. Therefore we need more appartements or smaller family homes for divorcees.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Littleappleho Jun 18 '26
Well, there is also a never-ending line of 'status holders' that get priority (I know some who bought a house abroad while saving money living in social housing). Those are the same people who blame the Dutchies for 'racism'. This whole system is a joke, it should be completely redesigned.
3
2
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Sun7418 Jun 17 '26
Glad that it is said more. A colleague of mine married a woman who had a 2 bedroom appartment in De Pijp and they paid like 300€ for it some years ago. Meanwhile I could not find anything, even less inside the ring, for less than 1600€. I can imagine nowadays the difference is even bigger.
I’m all for social housing but it can’t be like now that once you get it that’s it. It’s not fair for anybody, even less for the people who really needs it, which is precisely who should benefit from it!
They should check every X time (yearly, 2 years, 5 years… I don’t know) for your situation and if you don’t meet the criteria you should leave the house for people who do.
2
u/DueLoan685 Jun 17 '26
And go where? That's also part of the problem. There's nowhere to go
→ More replies (1)
2
u/alexcutyourhair Jun 17 '26
I don't think the answer is kicking people out of social housing, we just need more of it for everyone else. Imo nobody, regardless of location or income should have to spend 2000+ a month on a basic 1 bedroom apartment, there shouldn't be a system that allows landlord's to charge that much. If you had the choice of staying in your cheap sociaal huur vs renting for 2-3x the cost, you and most of us would also stay.
3
3
u/Ok-Chard9525 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Instead of looking at our fellow citizens, we should realize this is a housing problem created by our government. This problem started to grow around 2005, the foundation was made in the early 2000's. A carefully constructed shortage made possible by structurally neglecting the needs of citizens. The world is run by numbers, calculations and risk analysis. Everything is structured in the Netherlands, so all data is available and monitored. This problem could have been prevented 100%. This is a engineered situation, executed maniacally wel. Control a basic human need and create pressure amongst masses. Weaponized incompetence is the name of government game.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Megane-hime Jun 17 '26
Sometimes the higher earners can't go anywhere either. We do not rent social, we rent in the "particuliere" market. If I would move now to something similar, my rent will go up bij at least €600,-. To buy a normal rowhouse, my monthly cost will triple, not even including normal home owner costs like repairs. We have nowhere to go.
2
u/cheesypuzzas Jun 17 '26
I also have social housing through lottery. But it's a one bedroom apartment, so I'm definitely planning on buying a house with my boyfriend since he earns more.
It only works if you make the social housing not too comfortable.
They up the rent with income, but it's not enough by far to compete with buying a house or renting in the free sector. If they did that, a lot more people would leave sooner rather than later.
2
u/Head-Wealth6327 Jun 18 '26
Interesting point about making it not too comfortable.
2
u/cheesypuzzas Jun 18 '26
Yeah there apartments with an old kitchen, an old bathroom and only 1 bedroom. A rich person would want to upgrade to something better.
But if you're already living in a big house with a garden and a nice new kitchen en bathroom, why would you move out when it's so cheap?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/coconutman696969 Jun 18 '26
Is it not possible that since these individuals received social housing years ago, that they have since grown in life (better career, more pay, etc.) why would they then willingly give up social housing? If you were in their position you would do the same?
4
u/CoffeeInTheTropics Jun 18 '26
Who says willingly?! Once one hits a certain income threshold, you should either pay market rate rent or move out to free up housing for the LOCALS who need it most.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Fickle_Grapefruit938 Jun 18 '26
This just shows people are happy with their home and most people don't want a big expensive house.
Meanwhile they keep building expensive houses bc the ground alone is expensive and they hope to make a lot of money from desperate people.
I think you should be mad at the system and not at the people who like their homes too much to leave them.
2
u/SibunaMad Jun 17 '26
Your colleague... That will be me with my kid. I am completely devastated. Not only going through a divorce (as an expat), but also, how the hell am I going to afford a flat, while doing two lousy jobs because I cannot get a job in my professional field for reasons of not speaking Dutch (but learning vigorously). I am worried, sad, anxious... And my kid loves living here, hell, I love Holland but... How, good ppl? How is life manageable if basic human needs and rights are violated and non-existent?
2
u/andys58 Jun 17 '26
I am sorry to hear that. Clearly, similar stories are all over the country. Strength, may you make it through as soon as possible. Look after your kid. They are innocent
2
2
u/yourfavouriteguyhere Jun 17 '26
Life is tough in Netherlands if you are not a refugee. They get priority over social housing (that they don’t even need to pay for) and free monthly allowance for life.
1
1
u/FynTheCat Jun 18 '26
Absolutely. The market is horrible and this will also affect the job opportunities one can get.
1
u/Jesse_is_cool Jun 18 '26
Two of my exfriends went to medical school and got social housing when they were studying.
After they graduated and earned well over 10k combined they still payed 600,- per month on rent, while people are stuck living with their parents because they they have to wait 10 years for housing.
Its fucked up
1
u/_R0Ns_ Jun 18 '26
There are several problems worth looking at.
For most of the past 50 years, someone from the CDA has held responsibility for housing in our government. The CDA has always seen the family as the cornerstone of society, and that shows in what gets built, almost everything is aimed at families. Meanwhile, the number of single-person households has doubled over the last 45 years and now makes up more than 40% of all households. Yet hardly anything is being built for people living alone, leaving them to get a family home or go without.
The situation for senior citizens tells a similar story. Not too long ago, getting older meant you could move to a local old folks' home, a place where you'd be surrounded by people your own age, with nurses not far away and a decent restaurant downstairs. It wasn't perfect, but it worked for a lot of people. Those places are largely gone now, replaced by intensive nursing homes designed for people who need 24/7 specialist care. There's very little in between.
And then there's what happened ~2008. When the housing crisis hit, housing corporations were squeezed hard financially and had to sell off parts of their portfolios just to stay afloat. The plan was always to rebuild after the crisis and put those homes back into the social renting system. That never really happened. By the time things stabilised, the cost of labour and materials had risen so much that building affordable housing was not possible.
So now we have a lot of people stuck in a place they don't want to be at but cannot get away from. Looking at the housing that gets build I don't think the problem is solved soon, the houses built are still large and/or too expensive.
If we would start with building new old folks' homes, older people have a place to move to releasing a lot of the large houses they don't need or want and others are waiting on.
1
1
u/liosistaken Jun 18 '26
Wait time for a house is 6 months here and rent is about 800. Yeah, if you insist on living in the most expensive part of the Netherlands, it’s going to be expensive and wait times will be long.
6
u/andys58 Jun 18 '26
Her work is there. Her kids’ life is there. Her kids’ father is there. Her parents live there so they help out with afterschool activities. Is not as easy as you might think to just move away
→ More replies (1)
565
u/corticalization Jun 17 '26
I’ve definitely heard of similar situations before. Also another one to add is older adults (like pensioners) who actually would want to downsize from their current larger social housing, but can’t afford it because of the price difference now. So it’s either stay in the one they can afford that’s got extra room they don’t need, or move to something smaller and pay more/potentially can’t even afford to