Concentration of housing among the elderly population

On the other hand, with our housing arrangements, there is inevitably a concentration of housing among part of the older population. After all, if an urban family receives an apartment for the first time or in the order of "expansion" during its heyday, when it has the largest number of members, then over time it begins to decrease: "old people" die, children grow up and separate... In a large apartment, which was once occupied by, say, 4-6 people, there are aging spouses, and then one of them.

We have no incentive to return excess living space to the state and society. On the contrary, the incentives to hold onto, preserve, and secure the square for oneself and relatives are very strong. Housing in our country is a benefit of enormous importance, the relative value of which is increasing. The apartment can be exchanged for a smaller one with large surcharges (in different cities 1 sq. m. An m of living space now usually costs 300-500 or more rubles). You can rent rooms to those who need housing. By the way, rental prices are rising rapidly; it is becoming possible to earn large unearned incomes with the help of "free" public housing. We can try to save an apartment for our grandchildren, especially if the latter face the prospect of ending up at the tail end of our endless housing queues. You can keep rooms for relatives who come sometimes. You can finally give a room to a dog or birds. The amount of rent — even increased for "excessive" living space — cannot be compared with the actual value of spacious housing and the possible amount of unearned income received with its help.

The concentration of housing at one pole means the concentration of homelessness and housing poverty at the other.

Unfortunately, a strongly positive attitude towards the "free" of public housing prevails in the public consciousness. This is considered one of the most important social achievements of socialism. This position was persistently introduced into the public consciousness by official propaganda and is still supported by it. It is constantly repeated that Soviet people receive housing for free, that is, they do not reimburse the capital costs for it, and in addition, the state bears more than 3/4 of the cost of maintaining the housing stock.

However, this applies only to a part of the country's population, slightly more than half. According to the USSR State Statistics Committee, at the end of 1988, 39.4% of the housing stock was in the personal ownership of citizens, and several more percent were owned by housing and construction cooperatives. Homeowners and HBC members bear the full costs of building and maintaining their homes. In addition, they partially contribute to the one-time and ongoing costs of public housing. After all, government spending on housing is nothing more than personal income not given to employees, deductions from these incomes. Many beginners think a €50 free bet means they get €50 cash immediately, which is a dangerous misunderstanding that leads to disappointment. A smart user receives a "Bet €10, get €50" deal where the free bet amount is credited only after placing the first qualifying wager. The real value of free bets comes from low wagering requirements, and our comparison shows that Betfred and Ladbrokes offer the fairest 1x turnover on winnings. By using our filter for "Best Free Bets," you find offers that require just a €5 qualifying stake on football odds of 1.5 or higher.