High Earners Living In Council Houses Will Be Forced To Pay Market Rates Rent Under New Plans

[bomberbrown]

If they both work 50 hours a week?

You just missed my edited post. Finger failure on the calculator.

[@contradevian]

You just missed my edited post. Finger failure on the calculator.

Still laughable that Tories think anyone on 30-40k PA in London is a high earner!

Market rents should be capped at social rent levels. That would be the 'right thing to do' IMO

In my opinion socialising the rents in the form of social housing, or better still an LVT is essential to the success of the free market economy. Singapore would be a case in point.

Because that way 'the few' can't capture the profits and earnings of the economy, via escalating land values, or rentierism.

Interesting the 'Tory boys' can't see this fatal flaw of capitalism. Land is not Capital! Because many of the classical economists could. Or they choose not to see it of course

[council dweller]

Well as I said, I get zero income and the wife should get 30,000 when qualified as a nurse. (outside London)

The answer for us is for her to do agency nursing. Fewer hours but more money.

Edited July 8, 2015 by council dweller

[EUBanana]

Market rents should be capped at social rent levels. That would be the 'right thing to do' IMO

In my opinion socialising the rents in the form of social housing, or better still an LVT is essential to the success of the free market economy. Singapore would be a case in point.

Capping IMO would be a terrible idea - market distortion, price fixing. If the cap had teeth it would have knock on effects.

LVT though, that is a no brainer.

[BorrowToLeech]

Still laughable that Tories think anyone on 30-40k PA in London is a high earner!

But someone inheriting £1M pounds isn't.

[SarahBell]

The idea someone will be paid (with their huge pension mounting up) to oversee what salaries people are on is insane.

Will it be an annual check, or monthly submitted paychecks to make sure you're not tipping over the limit?

It's insane.

[Debbiebegood]

It doesn't matter whether you call it a subsidy or not. Arguing over the meaning of words is pointless.

What is inarguable is that social tenants have a housing situation which is much better than than those in the private sector. A private renter can't choose to become a social tenant. The best they can do is shared ownership, with a six-figure entry free. The government has handed out golden tickets to those who meet the criteria.

Everyone needs a house. But we also need to run society fairly. It's almost unbelievable that just by giving the needy decent housing we've given them a standard of living out of reach of vast swathes of people who are supposedly doing well for themselves.

Let's say that Social housing is subsidised (what is highly questionable) hence the rent is "low".

(In my opinion it is too high, considering the incomes of vast majority of tenants+awful quality of accomodation and small size)

BTL's insanely high rents are surely much more subsidised by the Government. (Also poor quality of accomodation and small size).

Anyhow, you argue (together with Spectrum and others), that the "subsidy" is removed from Social

Housing. The only fair solution is to remove both subsidies then, not just the Social one.

You guys would rather have Social rents increased to reach "market rate",rather than to lower "market" rates to reach Social rents?

If the foreign criminal moves into your area and launders his money by paying 15 times more than he should for his accomodation/rental, should your Council rent increase by the similar amount because all of a sudden your rent looks "subsidised"?

[council dweller]

Yes, I suggest a Tory volunteer group could do it. After all, the money to do these checks will have to come from rents.

On the other hand, the 4% rent cut will give us who pay our rents more money or will simply reduce the governments HB bill.

[crashmonitor]

The idea someone will be paid (with their huge pension mounting up) to oversee what salaries people are on is insane.

Will it be an annual check, or monthly submitted paychecks to make sure you're not tipping over the limit?

It's insane.

Probably be a self certification form, and illegal to make a false declaration.

[SarahBell]

Probably be a self certification form, and illegal to make a false declaration.

Which will need to be sent out and monitored and a random sample checked. There'll be silly jobs for this. Bet they'll be 35k a year jobs.

[crashmonitor]

It's a bit like hunting Bin laden, all this to get Frank Dobson . Indeed it is already been called the Frank Dobson tax.. Meanwhile he is lionised in left wing circles, instead of giving his name to a tax he gets the council block named after him.

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/Dobson-council-estate

Edited July 9, 2015 by crashmonitor

[@contradevian]

It's a bit like hunting Bin laden, all this to get Frank Dobson . Indeed it is already been called the Frank Dobson tax.. Meanwhile he is lionised in left wing circles, instead of giving his name to a tax he gets the council block named after him.

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/Dobson-council-estate

The block that Dobson lived in, only became Council due to a cancelled road scheme I believe.

Any why shouldn't he continue to live there if he can afford it?

Social housing was never conceived originally as a 'dumping ground.'

Edited July 9, 2015 by RentierParadisio

[crashmonitor]

An article from a few years back, Dobo can't afford private rents...he will have to now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003995/Former-minister-Frank-Dobson-afford-private-rent-66k.html

[Guest]

Anyhow, you argue (together with Spectrum and others), that the "subsidy" is removed from Social

Housing. The only fair solution is to remove both subsidies then, not just the Social one.

You guys would rather have Social rents increased to reach "market rate",rather than to lower "market" rates to reach Social rents?

No, I have absolutely not been arguing that the subsidy should be removed. I just want people with social tenancies to admit how lucky they are. As I said, decent housing is now so difficult to obtain the government has given social tenants a golden ticket. Even if my wages doubled I would still struggle to house myself to the same standard. Seeing these lucky people denying that they are receiving a 'subsidy' is just perverse. If you're not getting anything special, then where's my council house?

Everyone should have access to decent housing, not just a lucky few that fit the government's criteria.

Social tenants receive government largesse that is denied to me (this is unfair), but successive governments' policy of increasing council and housing association rents to inflated 'market' levels is crazy. The 'market' they're trying to match is, as you point out, completely rigged and propped up with government money. Making everyone pay the rent levels I'm faced with is just going to cause more poverty and more misery.

The unfairness is in:

- The allocation of council housing - why don't I have a hope of getting one?

- Right to buy - where's my free £100k?

- The abysmal state of the private rental sector - no security of tenure, rents based on astronomical housing benefit rates that again I don't get, people living in HMOs into their 40s.

- The insane amounts of money required to escape renting - 350k for a flat?

If my wages could buy me decent housing I wouldn't mind my taxes paying for homes for the needy. But as it is my standard of living when it comes to housing is a lot lower than even the poorest housing association tenant.

Making everyone pay the rent level I am faced with doesn't solve any of those issues - it just throws more people under the bus.

[iamnumerate]

The block that Dobson lived in, only became Council due to a cancelled road scheme I believe.

Any why shouldn't he continue to live there if he can afford it?

Social housing was never conceived originally as a 'dumping ground.'

Why should he get cheap housing? He has retired now and doesn't need to live there why can't he move out and let someone who needs it live there?

[@contradevian]

No, I have absolutely not been arguing that the subsidy should be removed. I just want people with social tenancies to admit how lucky they are. As I said, decent housing is now so difficult to obtain the government has given social tenants a golden ticket. Even if my wages doubled I would still struggle to house myself to the same standard. Seeing these lucky people denying that they are receiving a 'subsidy' is just perverse. If you're not getting anything special, then where's my council house?

Everyone should have access to decent housing, not just a lucky few that fit the government's criteria.

Social tenants receive government largesse that is denied to me (this is unfair), but successive governments' policy of increasing council and housing association rents to inflated 'market' levels is crazy. The 'market' they're trying to match is, as you point out, completely rigged and propped up with government money. Making everyone pay the rent levels I'm faced with is just going to cause more poverty and more misery.

The unfairness is in:

- The allocation of council housing - why don't I have a hope of getting one?

- Right to buy - where's my free £100k?

- The abysmal state of the private rental sector - no security of tenure, rents based on astronomical housing benefit rates that again I don't get, people living in HMOs into their 40s.

- The insane amounts of money required to escape renting - 350k for a flat?

If my wages could buy me decent housing I wouldn't mind my taxes paying for homes for the needy. But as it is my standard of living when it comes to housing is a lot lower than even the poorest housing association tenant.

Making everyone pay the rent level I am faced with doesn't solve any of those issues - it just throws more people under the bus.

In two words, No.

What you should be asking is why the Private Rented Sector is so appallingly dire that social housing tenancy is now looked as a golden ticket?

I can remember a time when you would be laughed at for even considering a social tenancy. I had an Uncle once.His greatest ambition? To get a Council house. And this is when new build semi's were being built and for sale for a few thousand pounds. Buying your own home in the 70's was a 'no brainer.'

Have you ever watched "How To Get a Council House' and looked at some of the wretched, mouldy badly maintained housing being offered in the social housing sector with the added bonus of potentially violent and anti-social neighbours?

Most of you would refuse any offer from a Council, even if you were bidding on them (which most or all of you aren't).

I don't envy lottery winners, because I have never done the lottery.

The gains made by home owners could be described as 'good fortune.' As someone well remarked (either on here or on Twitter) was that 'good fortune generally doesn't get shared around much.'

[Debbiebegood]

In two words, No.

What you should be asking is why the Private Rented Sector is so appallingly dire that social housing tenancy is now looked as a golden ticket?

I can remember a time when you would be laughed at for even considering a social tenancy. I had an Uncle once.His greatest ambition? To get a Council house. And this is when new build semi's were being built and for sale for a few thousand pounds. Buying your own home in the 70's was a 'no brainer.'

Have you ever watched "How To Get a Council House' and looked at some of the wretched, mouldy badly maintained housing being offered in the social housing sector with the added bonus of potentially violent and anti-social neighbours?

Most of you would refuse any offer from a Council, even if you were bidding on them (which most or all of you aren't).

I don't envy lottery winners, because I have never done the lottery.

The gains made by home owners could be described as 'good fortune.' As someone well remarked (either on here or on Twitter) was that 'good fortune generally doesn't get shared around much.'

+1

[SpectrumFX]

Let's say that Social housing is subsidised (what is highly questionable) hence the rent is "low".

(In my opinion it is too high, considering the incomes of vast majority of tenants+awful quality of accomodation and small size)

BTL's insanely high rents are surely much more subsidised by the Government. (Also poor quality of accomodation and small size).

Anyhow, you argue (together with Spectrum and others), that the "subsidy" is removed from Social

Housing. The only fair solution is to remove both subsidies then, not just the Social one.

You guys would rather have Social rents increased to reach "market rate",rather than to lower "market" rates to reach Social rents?

If the foreign criminal moves into your area and launders his money by paying 15 times more than he should for his accomodation/rental, should your Council rent increase by the similar amount because all of a sudden your rent looks "subsidised"?

I'm not against subsidised housing I'm just pointing out that it exists

I've said several times on this thread that I'm in favour of building enough that is's available to anybody who wants it. I'd also bring in a LVT to drive better allocation of land in the private sector (which should lead to cheaper rents for everybody).

You misunderstand my arguments because we're talking about different things. I'm talking about cost of capital and the refocusing of the currently limited social housing provision towards those who need it most for the benefit of society as whole, you're moaning because your current preferential access to a subsidised rent might be removed because you earn too much. I appreciate that the removal of this subsidy may be a blow to you, but arguing that it wasn't a subsidy anyway isn't going to help.

[EUBanana]

In two words, No.

What you should be asking is why the Private Rented Sector is so appallingly dire that social housing tenancy is now looked as a golden ticket?

Because of the very same government responsible for the social housing sector?

[iamnumerate]

I can remember a time when you would be laughed at for even considering a social tenancy. I had an Uncle once.His greatest ambition? To get a Council house. And this is when new build semi's were being built and for sale for a few thousand pounds. Buying your own home in the 70's was a 'no brainer.'

Not very relevant to those of us who were not born or small children in the 70s.

[Debbiebegood]

I'm not against subsidised housing I'm just pointing out that it exists

I've said several times on this thread that I'm in favour of building enough that is's available to anybody who wants it. I'd also bring in a LVT to drive better allocation of land in the private sector (which should lead to cheaper rents for everybody).

You misunderstand my arguments because we're talking about different things. I'm talking about cost of capital and the refocusing of the currently limited social housing provision towards those who need it most for the benefit of society as whole, you're moaning because your current preferential access to a subsidised rent might be removed because you earn too much. I appreciate that the removal of this subsidy may be a blow to you, but arguing that it wasn't a subsidy anyway isn't going to help.

I am not affected by this removal of "subsidy".

I am mortgage free in my own home. No debts of any kind.

People are fighting for scraps nowdays like drowning rats and I hate that. We should better all focus our anger at VI's who are subsidised in so many ways to the tune of trillions of pounds.

This issue is like bedroom tax and similar schemes that "save" negligible amounts of money, but are on the other hand very useful to the regime to point a finger in the wrong direction so the lynch mob's mentality can be unleashed.

Anyhow, UK is not drowning in more than 7trillion £ debt because of Social security benefits including their own housing (which was not built for decades in meaningful amounts and quality).

[Guest_northshore_*]

I am not affected by this removal of "subsidy".

I am mortgage free in my own home. No debts of any kind.

People are fighting for scraps nowdays like drowning rats and I hate that. We should better all focus our anger at VI's who are subsidised in so many ways to the tune of trillions of pounds.

This issue is like bedroom tax and similar schemes that "save" negligible amounts of money, but are on the other hand very useful to the regime to point a finger in the wrong direction so the lynch mob's mentality can be unleashed.

Anyhow, UK is not drowning in more than 7trillion £ debt because of Social security benefits including their own housing (which was not built for decades in meaningful amounts and quality).

Don't worry; anyone who bothers to investigate beyond abc headlines understands it e.g. http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/readers-letter-of-day.html, as do a good chunk of economists and anyone with any interest in progressive land taxation. And I guarantee the Government does else they wouldn't apply such heavy social and political engineering to the area. The worry is the general propensity to define an issue through bias, making such engineering and the maintenance of existing VI trends simpler. Hopefully that will change.

[SpectrumFX]

I am not affected by this removal of "subsidy".

I am mortgage free in my own home. No debts of any kind.

People are fighting for scraps nowdays like drowning rats and I hate that. We should better all focus our anger at VI's who are subsidised in so many ways to the tune of trillions of pounds.

This issue is like bedroom tax and similar schemes that "save" negligible amounts of money, but are on the other hand very useful to the regime to point a finger in the wrong direction so the lynch mob's mentality can be unleashed.

Anyhow, UK is not drowning in more than 7trillion £ debt because of Social security benefits including their own housing (which was not built for decades in meaningful amounts and quality).

So do you support somebody earning £50k a year getting a social housing allocation while somebody in genuine need of it on minimum wage doesn't?

It's like somebody who's not Ill sleeping in an NHS bed while sick people wait on trolleys in the corridors of the hospital.

Edited July 9, 2015 by SpectrumFX

[SpectrumFX]

Don't worry; anyone who bothers to investigate beyond abc headlines understands it e.g. http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/readers-letter-of-day.html, as do a good chunk of economists and anyone with any interest in progressive land taxation. And I guarantee the Government does else they wouldn't apply such heavy social and political engineering to the area. The worry is the general propensity to define an issue through bias, making such engineering and the maintenance of existing VI trends simpler. Hopefully that will change.

Hiya. You're back I see. Are you going to directly answer my point below, or are you just going to mope about like a stroppy teenager taking sideswipes at me indirectly in gushingly supportive replies to anybody who disagrees with my posts?

northshore, on 07 Jul 2015 - 3:54 PM, said:

There's a difference between any cash costs and notional costs.

Why?

What's the real terms difference between loss of income and the commitment of expenditure?

Whether I give up an income of £500, or physically hand someone £500 that I've taken out of an ATM the net effect on my bank balance is the same. Isn't it?

[Debbiebegood]

So do you support somebody earning £50k a year getting a social housing allocation while somebody in genuine need of it on minimum wage doesn't?

It's like somebody who's not Ill sleeping in an NHS bed while sick people wait on trolleys in the corridors of the hospital.

This issue is not straightforward as I said before.

1) People in dire Social needs are housed and partially helped with benefits to cover their rents.

They do not sleep on the streets.

2) Aim of this policy is only to squezze more money from the population: Majority of £50k people will be pushed to buy their very expensive Council property (even after £100k discount) so they will not vacate these premises for the ones who are worse off.

3) If majority of £50k people vacates their Council property due to poor value they will get for their "market rate" rent, the majority of Council estates will turn into even worse gettoes. Not to mention that they will now compete with the rentiers.who pay "market rate" hence the rents will go up for everybody.

4) Next move will be for the Government to introduce £20k treshold. (We all know how Governments policies that ensure "justice, fairness" to reward " hard work",etc- become distorted).

5) What should happen with breeding families that have many children and receive so much in benefits that they cross the treshold, so the Government pays itself higher rent?

6) This is yet another policy of divide and rule aimed to destroy what is left of the middle class.

Once middle class is gone, the age of pharaons is upon us (if not already).

As can be seen from the above, outcome of this policy will result in higher rents and higher property prices (despite Right to buy discount, prices are still double) and more desperate slaves who will compete for your and my job more vigorously.

Life is not just black and white.It has many shades of grey.

There are other facets: what if £50k person has outfoings (children/debt) that income per head of the household reaches the low treshold?

What should be that treshold income in above case?

What if that person loses the "highly" paid job of £50k? Does he then go back to the "subsidised" rent?

In London, £50k for a couple with 2 kids is not that much. If they live frugally, how much can they save in a year after living/rental/mortgage costs? - That should be the measure of success in life, rather than working for decades to just survive.