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

milliebear00001

vax2002 wrote: »

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.

Bunkum. We've had a social housing crisis for a long time. Until recently, the numbers of people entering amd leaving the country each year roughly balanced.

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

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

How? Huh?

By acknowledging this issue, and making plans to change laws, so that a change can be made to the current laws, to make a start on releasing current housing for those in more need.

geneer

Its a fair cop I think.
Used to hear stories about IT consultants putting themselves in for council housing in select (and desirable) parts of the town.
Not sure if you can pick and choose under current systems, but not sure someone "embedded" before the changes should not be able to milk the system.

Cleaver

Kohoutek wrote: »

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.

Huh? And as a second question... huh?! Really? Why?

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How? Huh?

By acknowledging this issue, and making plans to change laws, so that a change can be made to the current laws, to make a start on releasing current housing for those in more need.

Do you actually expect any of that to make a real difference? It simply isn't going to happen in anything like the numbers of homes that are needed. How are we going to replace the housing stock we used to have? Nobody is proposing any extra building, but that is what's really needed.

chris_m

STing wrote: »

My first instinct is 100k seems too high.

Too damned right - I'd have said at least three times too high TBH.

leveller2911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

So someone who is self employed and has 1 really good years income could cost them their tenancy........Not really fair or just.

Not to mention not much of an incentive to work harder is it, bit like tax credits......:D

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The new rules, I'd assume.

New rules don't apply to existing tenants who had the right to buy, only to new tenants.

For instance if someone had been a tenant for say 20 years and had the RTB ,housing taken over by a Housing Association the tenant keeps the right to buy..

michelle1506

Bloody cheek that! He must easily be able to afford to buy somewhere!

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm not sure about MPs, but Bob Crow lives in a HA house.

He earns £145,000 a year, and pays £150/week in rent. Another £150/week comes from subsidy.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

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)?

I don't have an answer and TBH I think there isn't a solution.

Taking money off everyone and handing it back to everyone would have massive costs in bureaucracy and in distortions to the price mechanism caused by taking the tax.

In the UK, Governments since at least 1601 have systematically tried and failed to solve this problem.

pleasedelete wrote: »

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.

I think I didn't make my point very well. What I was trying to say was that it's better to pay £1,000 in tax and get nothing back than to pay £1,105 in tax and get £5 back while paying bureaucrats £100 to tax you and send you welfare checks.

The highest earners in the UK pay by far the greatest proportion in tax.