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

Kohoutek

mazy_m wrote: »

Wow...Do you think he has an ounce of guilt about this??

Apparently not!

http://www.sunvote.co.uk/cms/news/166769/should_bob_crow_live_in_a_subsidised_council_house

An RMT spokesman said: "Bob makes no apology for living in social housing at the heart of his local community."

robin_banks

mazy_m wrote: »

Wow...Do you think he has an ounce of guilt about this??

It's disgusting!

I dunno, it would have offered to him when earning a lot less, but again not comfortable with it,

chewmylegoff

Frank Dobson lives in a council house as well, and did when he was a govt minister.

Is that any worse than a grace and favour flat? Probably not.

paddedjohn

as far as i can see, a solution would be to raise the rents to that of the private sector, people on low or nil incomes would still receive benefits to pay while the better off would be paying the going rate for the property and this money could be used towards providing more housing.

chewmylegoff

Just set the rent of a social housing unit at X and say the rent is the higher of X or 35% of your income. Bob would soon move out.

pleasedelete

Firstly how do they know what people other than public figures earn?

Seems headline grabbing.

Secondly surely it is better for an mp to live with the people they represent rather than locked up in a gated estate in a luxury area.

Remember that 20 years ago they were desperate to get graduates into council housing in London. Teachers (and I was one) doctors etc. I could have had a free flat for a while then very cheap in some London boroughs ( tower hamlets and harringey included I think). If I had stayed and brought up my family there surely that woukd have been a good thing? These were often tower blocks that no-one wanted to live in.

pleasedelete

And on the subject of mps. Three of my friends became mps last year. Every single one of them took a pay cut. 2 had 'ordinary' jobs you wouldn't have seen them as well off, one was quite affluent.

withabix

It might be headline grabbing, but it is STILL 6000 more homes available for people who NEED social housing.


The 6000 people currently living in them can afford to pay market rents.

Alternatively, they could stay in their current houses and pay market rents. I bet they would move out pretty quickly.

Generali

It's part of a continuing theme where this Government is removing middle class welfare.

Someone on £100,000 a year shouldn't be getting subsidized housing. A top rate taxpayer shouldn't be getting subsidized for having kids. It's much better to keep the money in your pocket than have the Government take with one hand and give with the other IMO.

STing

vivatifosi wrote: »

According to tomorrow's Telegraph, the 6,000 people on salaries over £100k pa who are living in council houses are to have their homes taken away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html

Ministers will target those who could afford to buy or rent a house comfortably but instead choose to live in a council house at vastly lower rents than those paid in the private sector.

For some London properties this amounts to the equivalent of someone having their rent subsidised by the taxpayer by up to £70,000 a year.

According to a Whitehall analysis prepared for ministers, there are up to 6,000 people in social housing with an income greater than £100,000.

A range of options is now being considered to free up this housing, which ministers say is being kept from those in need. These include granting new powers to councils, and the social landlords they control, to take homes away when it is clear that the income in the household is more than £100,000.

That would require changes to the law, but ministers are prepared to change the law to demonstrate their commitment to reforming the way in which council houses are allocated.



Article continues...

This forms part of the wider question of who should have access to social housing. 100k is a small step in the right direction. Ideally any limit would be set according to the locations house prices. My first instinct is 100k seems too high.