I didn’t realize that Sue was still in social housing - I assumed she had bought her new house and actually thought fair play to her as that would not have been an easy thing to do (for anyone, but especially on one income).
Given Sue’s boys are in their twenties and that she appears to have a great job (she has mentioned a few promotions/panels in recent years), why would she have been given a new house? (genuine question!) I assumed that she was also really making a killing on those AF links and again thought fair play to her
![Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: 🤣](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/joypixels/emoji-assets@5.0/png/64/1f923.png)
As the
@P1nkie! above says, if Sue has the money to go on so many holidays and buy so much make up/clothes and go shopping in M&S and Avoca surely she isn’t eligible for social housing? If she is, the system is even more broken than I thought
![See-no-evil monkey :see_no_evil: 🙈](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/joypixels/emoji-assets@5.0/png/64/1f648.png)
I’m absolutely not throwing shade at social housing, but given the housing crisis, I just assumed the income limit/ dependent requirements would mean that people in social housing typically can’t afford such regular M&S/Avoca trips and holidays (obviously everyone is entitled to a treat, I’m
not saying people in social
housing shouldn’t have holidays or shop in nice places, but these are routine for Sue). We are a two income household with a mortgage and those things are rare treats for us. This also isn’t shade at Sue, she is obviously entitled to a house, I just don’t understand the system and assumed the income limits were much lower than they are.