Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Money Frugality

Pay To Stay - No More 80K German Cars Outside Council Houses

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/george-osborne-pay-to-stay-council-social-housing-force-tens-of-thousands-a6859031.html

The Government plans to make households with a combined income greater than £30,000 pay the average market rate for their area, a measure which threatens to push all but the poorest families out of expensive areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people going to fall for this BS.

We can of course apparently afford to give them a £100k subsidy to buy their council home of course - which means the asset is basically stolen from the local community by stealth. And isn't that the objective - cos if you are forced to pay market rent you might as well buy it.

And the message this sends. You earn £39k in London but have to turn down a promotion taking you to £41k as that extra £2k gross could mean you have to pay £10k a year extra in market rent. No one on £40k with kids can afford market rent in inner London. So council housing becomes the total preserve of the unemployed and those lacking in ambition.

And we miss the point - there is no subsidy as these properties were paid for long ago.

Edited by MARTINX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council housing was never the problem. Letting people buy it cheaply, so they could sell it on at a massive profit to private landlords was.

Also, you shouldn't really care that someone is on a decent wage in a council house. In the past council properties were an ok place to live, but most people aspired to something better. The problem now is that council properties look pretty good compared to the crappy newbuilds, tiny flats and substandard conversions that comprise a lot of private housing stock.

It's part of the race to the bottom 'I'm getting screwed, so they should be too.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with remembering that after the Housing Bill is passed the most expensive council properties will be sold when vacated. So many of the newly available properties will not go to 'more needy' people if their 'wealthy' tenants leave, but instead will be sold on the private market to fund Right to Buy for HA tenants, further reducing the supply of affordable housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ two good posts.

I wonder what the ratio of workers/unemployed in council houses were before right to buy?!

From memory - 80% working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this is unfair? Anyone working and earning £30,000 or more is paying market rent in PRS. Why should social tenants be different ?

Having said that I would prefer to reduce LHA. This would help PRS tenants have more disposable income to spend Directly in the the economy.

Edited by Fairyland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council housing was never the problem. Letting people buy it cheaply, so they could sell it on at a massive profit to private landlords was.

No. Multigenerational tenancies at massively subsidised rents was the problem. Once the tenancy was granted the council lost the asset for, potentially, a century yet retained all repair and maintenance obligations. That's where the discounting occurred - not when they got it off their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just kite flying. When all the noise has died off, the 'generous' government will increase the earning limit to £70k.

BTW Where does London end? - Are there any streets that are in London on one side and not on the other?

£30k is £1,900 pcm after tax. That is the just less than the average free market rent for a three bedder in my area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Multigenerational tenancies at massively subsidised rents was the problem. Once the tenancy was granted the council lost the asset for, potentially, a century yet retained all repair and maintenance obligations. That's where the discounting occurred - not when they got it off their books.

I don't have evidence to back up spy guys 80% figure above, but it sounds reasonable. I may try to find the figure today. Subsidised rents made working for a living for viable for those on fixed incomes.

The council obligations were/are little different to private landlords on the continent today.

Sorry but your post screams of right to buy apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't want anyone to be able to live cheaply and not be in debt to banks.

Increasing rents will help create more home borrowers in debt to banks for 40 or 50 years.

The minimum wage is going up to £9 an hour, so two on that will be £36k household income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a council dweller I`m worried about this..........no not really !

As cunning plan says they`ll cut the earnings limit considerably .

I`m off sick and my wife (If she`s still here !) will qualify as a nurse soon. I haven't told her about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have evidence to back up spy guys 80% figure above, but it sounds reasonable. I may try to find the figure today. Subsidised rents made working for a living for viable for those on fixed incomes.

The council obligations were/are little different to private landlords on the continent today.

Sorry but your post screams of right to buy apology.

Not an apology - just a request to run the maths and not do a Guardian knee-jerk.

The council is selling a heavily encumbered asset. It's bound to be at a discount. What I don't know is how the RTB discount compares. If it exceeds the asset encumbrance then the council is giving away yet more of your money to the tenant-buyer. OTOH, as there's a sort of marriage value when the tenant (beneficiary of the previous give away) buys the house, it could be that the price paid is actually greater than the market value of the encumbered asset and the council is making a slight recovery.

I don't have the detailed maths but I do know that it's not as simple as the Guardian makes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just kite flying. When all the noise has died off, the 'generous' government will increase the earning limit to £70k.

BTW Where does London end? - Are there any streets that are in London on one side and not on the other?

£30k is £1,900 pcm after tax. That is the just less than the average free market rent for a three bedder in my area.

A two bed flat (token, single second bedroom) in my area of the SE is £795 pcm. Which would leave two people just below the equivalent income of pension credit . . . the bare minimum the Government think you can live on.

Would they then apply for council tax relief and HB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an apology - just a request to run the maths and not do a Guardian knee-jerk.

The council is selling a heavily encumbered asset. It's bound to be at a discount. What I don't know is how the RTB discount compares. If it exceeds the asset encumbrance then the council is giving away yet more of your money to the tenant-buyer. OTOH, as there's a sort of marriage value when the tenant (beneficiary of the previous give away) buys the house, it could be that the price paid is actually greater than the market value of the encumbered asset and the council is making a slight recovery.

I don't have the detailed maths but I do know that it's not as simple as the Guardian makes out.

Guardian snipes aside how do you propose landlords on the continent make any money given tennents rights and their obligations?

FWIW I've heard plausible argument for what you say. So I understand there's some financial justification in isolated circumstances. However should private landlords be held to the same obligations then we wouldn't probably be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an apology - just a request to run the maths and not do a Guardian knee-jerk.

The council is selling a heavily encumbered asset. It's bound to be at a discount. What I don't know is how the RTB discount compares. If it exceeds the asset encumbrance then the council is giving away yet more of your money to the tenant-buyer. OTOH, as there's a sort of marriage value when the tenant (beneficiary of the previous give away) buys the house, it could be that the price paid is actually greater than the market value of the encumbered asset and the council is making a slight recovery.

I don't have the detailed maths but I do know that it's not as simple as the Guardian makes out.

Are council houses a huge burden on them? Most were built and paid for years ago and from then on provide a regular income, minus maintenance. Don't the Tories merely hate them because it's a case of cui bono.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the public duty and self interest to maintain your asset to a good order.

Given the decay many tennents report, private landlords simply allow their assets to rot, largely down to tight margins and a serve drought of long term thinking.

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are council houses a huge burden on them? Most were built and paid for years ago and from then on provide a regular income, minus maintenance. Don't the Tories merely hate them because it's a case of cui bono.

Plus why sell for such a discount? They should be sold with some resemblance of market levels. Possibly deposit paid maybe but not at £50-100k discount. Talk about market distortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are council houses a huge burden on them? Most were built and paid for years ago and from then on provide a regular income, minus maintenance.

A great many people - even a great many councillors - have a weird blindness to deployed capital and its costs.

Don't the Tories merely hate them because it's a case of cui bono.

Don't be blinded into their party pantomime. "Evil Tories!", "Red Labour!", "It woz Fatcher's fault!", etc. They're all the same. If you're sort of implying that the Tories are conspiring landlords, then remember the peak of political landlordism was probably the last Labour lot. Unfortunately, the register of interests wasn't so transparent at the time so it's less clear - but I reckon those Islington Champagne socialists were spuds deep in BTL.

Critique the ideas and policies not the colour of the rosette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't want anyone to be able to live cheaply and not be in debt to banks.

Increasing rents will help create more home borrowers in debt to banks for 40 or 50 years.

I'm all for cheap living costs, what I'm not for is other people having cheap living cost thanks to my taxes while I continue to be at the mercy of the rentiers.

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guardian snipes aside how do you propose landlords on the continent make any money given tennents rights and their obligations?

Not sure how continental rental markets is relevant?

FWIW I've heard plausible argument for what you say. So I understand there's some financial justification in isolated circumstances. However should private landlords be held to the same obligations then we wouldn't probably be having this discussion.

Well, I think I've put forward a "plausible argument"! Is it flawed? How? I'm always up for learning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this council are very good and never do anything for the short term. The drains were broken and a good repair was carried out.....the first repairs since the house was built in 1952. Same goes for the roof, good solid concrete tiles which should last over 60 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great many people - even a great many councillors - have a weird blindness to deployed capital and its costs.

Don't be blinded into their party pantomime. "Evil Tories!", "Red Labour!", "It woz Fatcher's fault!", etc. They're all the same. If you're sort of implying that the Tories are conspiring landlords, then remember the peak of political landlordism was probably the last Labour lot. Unfortunately, the register of interests wasn't so transparent at the time so it's less clear - but I reckon those Islington Champagne socialists were spuds deep in BTL.

Critique the ideas and policies not the colour of the rosette.

I am, right to buy was a bad idea and the Tories have now extended it to HA properties, their agenda is clear - pay a mortgage or pay someone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   68 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.