Rent Rises If You Earn Money - Social Housing

[SarahBell]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/29/social-housing-tenants-face-soaring-rents-under-pay-to-stay-policy

More than 70,000 tenants face average rent rises of more than £1,000 a year under the government’s “pay to stay” policy aimed at ensuring supposedly high earners living in social housing are charged market rents.

Councils have warned that nearly one in 10 social tenants in London and the south-east can expect rent rises, with those living in the capital facing an average monthly rent rise of £132.

Under pay to stay, households with a combined income of £40,000 and above in London, and £31,000 in the rest of England, will be classified as “high income tenants” and subject to rent increases of 15p for every pound they earn above the high-income thresholds.

So does this income level include benefits?

[darwin]

How is the government going to implement this?

[MrMonkey]

Incompetently, inconsistently, and late would be my guess.

[bomberbrown]

I'm likely to be affected by this and have commented on this on numerous times. In essence, a household with two teachers on a starting salary of £22,244 in the north of England are immediately affected and will pay a higher rate of rent (for the same accommodation I hasten to add) and then on the other side of the fence, if I was to earn £89,999 pa here in London, I would still qualify for any of the numerous HTB schemes to buy a flat up to £600k and qualify for £240k (NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION £) of tax payers money towards it......... INTEREST FREE!!!

The system is FUBAR and is quite clear that that TPTB are only interested in getting its serfs into a lifetime of debt servitude.

[CunningPlan]

I'm likely to be affected by this and have commented on this on numerous times. In essence, a household with two teachers on a starting salary of £22,244 in the north of England are immediately affected and will pay a higher rate of rent (for the same accommodation I hasten to add) and then on the other side of the fence, if I was to earn £89,999 pa here in London, I would still qualify for any of the numerous HTB schemes to buy a flat up to £600k and qualify for £240k (NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION £) of tax payers money towards it......... INTEREST FREE!!!

The system is FUBAR and is quite clear that that TPTB are only interested in getting its serfs into a lifetime of debt servitude.

Don't want to start an argument here but I would have thought two people in the North on that kind of money could probably afford private rent? But looking forwards, once the two teachers are heads of dept (what is that - £40k each) then are they really the right people to still be in a council house? There needs to be some system to move people on once their need is not there anymore - and there was no appetite for 3 year tenancies which would have done the trick.

I personally would have made the numbers based on local housing costs. I.e. once your combined take home is 4 x average private rent you are probably able to stand on your own two feet.

[eek]

I'm likely to be affected by this and have commented on this on numerous times. In essence, a household with two teachers on a starting salary of £22,244 in the north of England are immediately affected and will pay a higher rate of rent (for the same accommodation I hasten to add) and then on the other side of the fence, if I was to earn £89,999 pa here in London, I would still qualify for any of the numerous HTB schemes to buy a flat up to £600k and qualify for £240k (NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION £) of tax payers money towards it......... INTEREST FREE!!!

The system is FUBAR and is quite clear that that TPTB are only interested in getting its serfs into a lifetime of debt servitude.

The system needs to be reformed as a whole but no one is responsible for the whole and no one is brave enough to do it.

Hence fiddle around the edges and create bigger messes....

[iamnumerate]

Why not have everyone paying market rents and using the money to build more homes so market rents fall (plus encouraging/forcing people who don't work to move out of high demand areas)?

[bomberbrown]

Why not have everyone paying market rents and using the money to build more homes Council Houses for rent only so market rents fall (plus encouraging/forcing people who don't work to move out of high demand areas)?

I wholeheartedly agree with this version fixed by me.

[davidg]

I wholeheartedly agree with this version fixed by me.

I don't think it is the job of govt or local authorities to get involved in housing other than providing accommodation for long term UK residents in exceptional need.

[Meerkat]

I don't think it is the job of govt or local authorities to get involved in housing other than providing accommodation for long term UK residents in exceptional need.

+1

It still striketh me how many people are disagreeing with Marxian type policies and proposing to tackle the consequences by implementing a new set of similar policies. Two wrongs don't make it right, do they?

Of course, housing and rents should be left to market except (maybe...) in exceptional situations, just as you have highlighted. Less, not more government intervention is needed to rectify problems solely created by too much of government intervention.

[MARTINX9]

I'm likely to be affected by this and have commented on this on numerous times. In essence, a household with two teachers on a starting salary of £22,244 in the north of England are immediately affected and will pay a higher rate of rent (for the same accommodation I hasten to add) and then on the other side of the fence, if I was to earn £89,999 pa here in London, I would still qualify for any of the numerous HTB schemes to buy a flat up to £600k and qualify for £240k (NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION £) of tax payers money towards it......... INTEREST FREE!!!

The system is FUBAR and is quite clear that that TPTB are only interested in getting its serfs into a lifetime of debt servitude.

Seems councils are saying this scheme will cost more to implement than it raises - as they now have to monitor the income of all their tenants. Honest folk will lose out - the cash in hand work on the sly crowd will not be affected and sub letting of properties will continue due to lack of capacity to monitor them.

Lots of money as you say for corporate welfare - like help to buy.

[council dweller]

Yes. I get a very small amount of benefits (35 quid) but the wife will get £31,000 after she qualifies as a nurse next year.

So....after 4 years of training she`ll switch to working part-time in order to avoid paying to stay.

Anyway , any letter from the council will be ignored ....they`ll have to call several times.......and then they`ll get nothing.

[porca misèria]

The system needs to be reformed as a whole but no one is responsible for the whole and no one is brave enough to do it.

Hence fiddle around the edges and create bigger messes....

In a nutshell.

Seems councils are saying this scheme will cost more to implement than it raises - as they now have to monitor the income of all their tenants. Honest folk will lose out - the cash in hand work on the sly crowd will not be affected and sub letting of properties will continue due to lack of capacity to monitor them.

Lots of money as you say for corporate welfare - like help to buy.

Or, more succinctly, means-testing is systematically broken.

[bomberbrown]

I don't think it is the job of govt or local authorities to get involved in housing other than providing accommodation for long term UK residents in exceptional need.

+1

It still striketh me how many people are disagreeing with Marxian type policies and proposing to tackle the consequences by implementing a new set of similar policies. Two wrongs don't make it right, do they?

Of course, housing and rents should be left to market except (maybe...) in exceptional situations, just as you have highlighted. Less, not more government intervention is needed to rectify problems solely created by too much of government intervention.

So by this extension, do you still think the government and local authorities should provide NHS medical care, policing and education? But not basic housing/shelter? Why not leave market forces to determine, health,education and policing?

[winkie]

Was awhile now where I read, I think in one of the Scandinavian countries.....A low paid working person or family was given a social house for a set period of time say five to ten years, after that it was reviewed to see if the total household income was appropriate to qualify for the rent discount for the area...... in other words social housing to be allocated to local low paid workers.

[Meerkat]

So by this extension, do you still think the government and local authorities should provide NHS medical care, policing and education? But not basic housing/shelter? Why not leave market forces to determine, health,education and policing?

You are bursting here. For the simplicity, cd hv stuck to housing for starters and explored how (even if well intended) various interventions have led to spiralling house and rent prices.

Anything where market functions should be left to the market. Education? No prob, let the government get involved but give people choice - attend government or privately run establishments. Medical care? Same. Prove me private sector wouldn't provide better and cheaper service. You seem to be forgetting that somebody always pays for everything, the government does not get the money from heavens. Refer to some calculations how much decently paid working class specie pays in all types of taxation every year and think what he/she could have done with 90% of that money if that specie was allowed to choose if to pay to government or private service providers. (Policing, as that's effectively monopoly on using coercion/force, is one of the few areas which is indeed best served by a central body; same would apply to the military.)

[Meerkat]

Whilst government controls planning AND money supply, there can be no such thing as "the market" in housing as though it were a pure beast.

Stop right there. That's where the whole thing starts. This shoudn't be treated as a given.

[knock out johnny]

So by this extension, do you still think the government and local authorities should provide NHS medical care, policing and education? But not basic housing/shelter? Why not leave market forces to determine, health,education and policing?

basic enough for you?

[bomberbrown]

@koj. I grew up in a tower block not dissimilar to that picture, so yes, that is basic enough for me.

As it happens, I grew up in that tower block for a time because Coventry City Council had just built them (late sixties), the rent was cheaper than anything private and my mum (and I) had no where else to live.

To be honest, I'm as much for tenancy law reforms for PRS than I am for building more council housing.

[Royw6]

I'm likely to be affected by this and have commented on this on numerous times. In essence, a household with two teachers on a starting salary of £22,244 in the north of England are immediately affected and will pay a higher rate of rent (for the same accommodation I hasten to add) and then on the other side of the fence, if I was to earn £89,999 pa here in London, I would still qualify for any of the numerous HTB schemes to buy a flat up to £600k and qualify for £240k (NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION £) of tax payers money towards it......... INTEREST FREE!!!

The system is FUBAR and is quite clear that that TPTB are only interested in getting its serfs into a lifetime of debt servitude.

Fully agree with you. Social housing is cost neutral and this is a money grab on those who have pushed themselves up the pay scale. From now on I'd imagine that those salary cliff edges will increase at the same rate as student loan pay back levels.

It is just the continued removal of the welfare state.

[Royw6]

Well, one of my interventions would be the use of compulsory purchase to buy farmland, give outline planning permission and auction the land off to private developers to build new homes.

This way you can 'plan' AND secure the gains the community grant for new building to fund itself - rather than give that gain out to private developers and big landowners who are then encouraged to ration new building to keep prices high, generating profits from the planning process rather than actually building homes.

We funded the successful capitalist colony of Hong Kong like this, I don't understand why we can't do that here.

Well that and selling the locals vast amounts of opium.

[MattW]

Totally in agreement with bomberbrown on this subject, I'm also from council housing stock.

[bomberbrown]

basic enough for you?

To be honest, I can't quite see the difference between your picture and these pictures I posted back in 2009. Except one is presumably state built and cheap to rent and the others will cost you half a million £ for a one bedroomed apartment.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/158270-very-very-desperate-selling-gimmicks-for-shared-ownership-ripoffs/?p=1248265

[Meerkat]

Well, one of my interventions would be the use of compulsory purchase to buy farmland, give outline planning permission and auction the land off to private developers to build new homes.

This way you can 'plan' AND secure the gains the community grant for new building to fund itself - rather than give that gain out to private developers and big landowners who are then encouraged to ration new building to keep prices high, generating profits from the planning process rather than actually building homes.

We funded the successful capitalist colony of Hong Kong like this, I don't understand why we can't do that here.

I appreciate what you are saying. Indeed, some of those policies would bring the whole thing somewhat closer maybe to what it cd/shd be. The point though is that the supply side is to really blame for a tiny fraction of housing issues. The real elephant is the state mandated and immoral wealth redistribution & credit expansion.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/29/social-housing-tenants-face-soaring-rents-under-pay-to-stay-policy

More than 70,000 tenants face average rent rises of more than £1,000 a year under the government’s “pay to stay” policy aimed at ensuring supposedly high earners living in social housing are charged market rents.

Councils have warned that nearly one in 10 social tenants in London and the south-east can expect rent rises, with those living in the capital facing an average monthly rent rise of £132.

Under pay to stay, households with a combined income of £40,000 and above in London, and £31,000 in the rest of England, will be classified as “high income tenants” and subject to rent increases of 15p for every pound they earn above the high-income thresholds.

So does this income level include benefits?

Rents to rise to market rates set by tax payer funded Housing benefit band outs to landlords/

I see a problem here,