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

vivatifosi

pleasedelete wrote: »

Seems headline grabbing.

It is 100% headline grabbing. It's saying "look at these people, who are they to deserve a subsidised house".

Speaking to my friends who work in council housing, they are now constantly getting calls from elderly people who are terrified that they are going to be chucked out of the house that they've lived in for 40+ years. The reality is that if social housing is to be re-engineered, and I have no doubt that is what will happen, then the government has to be seen as dealing with easy targets first in order to make these harder to deal with issues more palatable to the general public. They have to work out how hard they can push before the public strikes back, says "no" and votes for the other side. Nobody will shed a tear for someone on £100k living in subsidised housing.

robin_banks

STing wrote: »

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.

I suspect these individuals have been tenants for years, they wouldnt get an offer now.

Not many individuals working would get an LA property

michaels

I completely agree.

However the more 'benefits' that are withdrawn from those who are earning the higher the effective marginal tax rates become which of course act as a real disincentive to come off benefits - currently it is common to have a marginal effective rate of 95% so after paying for commuting etc it is in effect working for a loss.

Any good solutions (aside from paying every individual a fixed sum each year - citizen premia - which would be enough to house and feed yourself and then add on a flat tax rate payable from £0, possibly with higher bands for higher incomes)?

Generali wrote: »

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.

marvin

withabix wrote: »

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.

I don't get the assumption that there would be 6000 extra properties what is to stop them taking up their right to buy at a discount?

Graham_Devon

marvin wrote: »

I don't get the assumption that there would be 6000 extra properties what is to stop them taking up their right to buy at a discount?

The new rules, I'd assume.

pleasedelete

Generali wrote: »

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.

But isn't that really naive and contradictory? Who do you want to keep their hands in their pockets? Those on over 100k?

The problem is that they will and then where will the money for benefits co e from?

. Top rate tax payers will just stop paying (by setting up limited companies) or move abroad. I paid £26 in tax and ni last year. This year I will hopefully pay none or at most 10k. My income will be the same just paid in a more tax efficient way.

The whole tax and benefit system needs reforming.

milliebear00001

I suspect these are people who've been in this housing for many years - perhaps dating back to when they earned considerably less.

Whatever, it's a drop in the ocean and a very neat way of appealing to the knee jerkers who are totally missing the point that the coalition is failing to acknowledge or tackle the problem of a massive shortgage of social housing, caused by selling off all the council housing in the first place!

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I suspect these are people who've been in this housing for many years - perhaps dating back to when they earned considerably less.

Whatever, it's a drop in the ocean and a very neat way of appealing to the knee jerkers who are totally missing the point that the coalition is failing to acknowledge or tackle the problem of a massive shortgage of social housing, caused by selling off all the council housing in the first place!

I'm not sure how you can accuse the coalition of failing to acknowledge or tackle the problem of social housing shortages.

That's exactly what they HAVE done.

It' doesn't sort out every problem from the word go. Nothing would. But it's a good start.

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can accuse the coalition of failing to acknowledge or tackle the problem of social housing shortages.

That's exactly what they HAVE done.

.....................How?

vax2002

We have a Housing crisis because the supporters of untethered immigration never gave a thought to where all these millions of people will live, which is usually as far away from them as possible.