Council house? Not if you are on over £100k pa

leveller2911

michaels wrote: »

OK - say the council was selling off its council house and sold it to the tenant at only 1/3rd of the market value to the current tenant - that would also not be a subsidy?


That rule ceased years ago, since then anyone who signs a tenancy agreement doesn't have the RTB they may (depending on date of tenancy) have the RTA Right To Aquire and this is at full market rate.......How many thousands of new tenants have their been in the past decade or more?.......

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe subsidy is the wrong word. But it's the word the government also uses.

I think it's fair to say that it's costing the taxpayer more than it otherwise would to provide tenancies to council house recipients. That in my mind goes back to a subsidy, as it's extra government spending to allow those in receipt of council houses to continue living in, and enjoying lower rents. But I can see how people would disagree.

Its also fair to say that many thousands of home owners have received taxpayers money through Grants to renovate their houses(supposedly a means tested benefit).

Ive worked on a fair few in my lifetime and have included complete renovations , all new hardwood windows,floors,complete bathrooms ,stair cases etc .

Just to even it up and be consistant can we have some homeowner bashing too.....:D

Graham_Devon

I assume you are talking insulation and warmfront grants?

If so, I'd agree. Also a rather unfair way of doing things. Made me and my neighbour laugh actually. Where I am, one side of the street is owned, the other, council.

When the insulation was done, half the street had holes up the top of the exterior walls for roughly a week, before they were filled in and redecored.

Come the snow last winter, myself and my neighbour were outside, pondering why on half of the street, the snow had melted from the rooves, yet the other there was still a thick covering. Only hit us five minutes later that it's all our heat evaporating, while they sit snug! I guess that was the reason anyway. I'm not a bulding or weather type buff!

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I assume you are talking insulation and warmfront grants?


No nothing to do with warmfront ,it was a grant system where homeowners applied to the local council for grants to carry out work to their houses.The ones I worked on were generally re-roofing,new windows,bathroom refurbishments and lots of kitchens.

The work was carried out by private companies who bid from the grant work.I sub contracted to one company and we did a lot of National Trust and Church work but also grant work.The grants were supposed to be means tested but I can say from personal experience that many were put through with a nod and a wink.

One in particular springs to mind where a businessmans wife inherited a cottage and placed the ownership in her daughters name.The daughter was on a low wage and applied for the grant to renovate the entire property and was successful.

I belive the only proviso was that she didn't sell it for 3 years ,if she did then she would have to pay the grant back.Needless to say they sold it after 5yrs...

This type of grant work was very very common in the 90,s ,all paid for by the tax payer for the benefit of the homeowner. That said some of the people were genuinely in need but chose not to sell.

pleasedelete

Wardwarkowner

Please feel free to all me a liar.

If you read the posting the 26k was as payee employee. I will pay less as ltd company and share dividend based on tne same take home amount across a year (I didn't say how much so on what basis can you doubt my figures?) That's the point. It's not right. The system is broken. I tried to give a real example to show that salary can be misleading.

I didn't aim to make it about me. People were making comments about mps- but how many people know any? I know a few. They are not bad people (some may be but many are not). Rather than use stereotypical generalizations to throw rhetoric I tried to talk about real life experience.

Sorry if that offended you.

laurel7172

The thing is, I can think of no other circumstances in which a means-tested benefit (that is, extra money, because paying less rent is extra money in your pocket) is awarded for life, regardless of need, regardless of the continuation of the circumstances in which it was awarded.

Imagine if a few weeks on income support entitled you to it for life. Imagine if child tax credits were paid long after the children had left home and started families of their own.

Some may say it isn't the same thing, but in fact, it's worse. There's a limited number of people able to claim this benefit, and by continuing to claim it in altered circumstances, existing claimants deprive others in greater need.

Obviously, more social housing would solve the problem. But nobody's going to pay for that, so the question is how to allocate the resources fairly-and "I had it first" is the politics of preschool.

Graham_Devon

laurel7172 wrote: »

The thing is, I can think of no other circumstances in which a means-tested benefit (that is, extra money, because paying less rent is extra money in your pocket) is awarded for life, regardless of need, regardless of the continuation of the circumstances in which it was awarded.

Imagine if a few weeks on income support entitled you to it for life. Imagine if child tax credits were paid long after the children had left home and started families of their own.

Some may say it isn't the same thing, but in fact, it's worse. There's a limited number of people able to claim this benefit, and by continuing to claim it in altered circumstances, existing claimants deprive others in greater need.

Obviously, more social housing would solve the problem. But nobody's going to pay for that, so the question is how to allocate the resources fairly-and "I had it first" is the politics of preschool.

Even chronic disabled people have to go through reassesment. Doesn't always involve them, but they do get assessed, and it often gets taken from them.

The_White_Horse

all they need to do is make the rent 25% of your income for all tenants. that will sort it out. if these cretins want to pay 2k a month rent, then that is fine with me. they can live there til they die. what is unacceptable is them living there and paying a pittance. personally, i blame the ineffective lefty for allowing such a situation to arise in the first place.

michaels

Nice summary.

laurel7172 wrote: »

The thing is, I can think of no other circumstances in which a means-tested benefit (that is, extra money, because paying less rent is extra money in your pocket) is awarded for life, regardless of need, regardless of the continuation of the circumstances in which it was awarded.

Imagine if a few weeks on income support entitled you to it for life. Imagine if child tax credits were paid long after the children had left home and started families of their own.

Some may say it isn't the same thing, but in fact, it's worse. There's a limited number of people able to claim this benefit, and by continuing to claim it in altered circumstances, existing claimants deprive others in greater need.

Obviously, more social housing would solve the problem. But nobody's going to pay for that, so the question is how to allocate the resources fairly-and "I had it first" is the politics of preschool.

leveller2911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

all they need to do is make the rent 25% of your income for all tenants. that will sort it out. if these cretins want to pay 2k a month rent, then that is fine with me. they can live there til they die. what is unacceptable is them living there and paying a pittance. personally, i blame the ineffective lefty for allowing such a situation to arise in the first place.

I would defend your right to post your views WH, but who exactly are you calling cretins? and why? ...... Its got to a stage in your postings where your either ignored or at the least thought of as a self confessed player of the pink oboe.....


Living in Social housing for many is not a lifestyle choice unlike many with mortgages drowning in debt, you know that pure Capitaist Society you dream of, are they cretins too? I'm genuinely interested in how you define "cretin" in your world.