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

[Deleted User]

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.

People being able to unfairly exploit another system doesn't mean we shouldn't stop this abuse.

The benefits are currently being paid from borrowed money, or at least the country is spending more on benefits and other things than it receives in tax.

Both systems need overhauling because of people like you. Ever thought of doings what's right, fair or honest? Or are you thinking of joining your cronies and becoming an MP as well?

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

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.

You asked how the coalition were looking at the problem and dealing with it.

I have shown you.

I have stated, and I think everyone would accept that they cannot fix the entire social housing problem overnight. If they did try, they would be forced out of government within a month.

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

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..

I was referring to this...

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.

molit

I remember eharing a lottery winner or two saying, we're not going to move out of our concil house, we like it....

I think the question that has to be answered is, is council housing for life, or should it be viewed as a helping hand to get people on their feet, or somewhere in between...


surely if you have <£1m in the bank then you shouldnt get a house....and I think louis Spence is still in his, and has no intention of moving

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You asked how the coalition were looking at the problem and dealing with it.

I have shown you.

I have stated, and I think everyone would accept that they cannot fix the entire social housing problem overnight. If they did try, they would be forced out of government within a month.

No, what you have pointed out is a few pathetic plans to make very small adjustments to the rules as they stand.

The facts are that there's lots of moaning here about the rich qualifying for social housing, when actually, to get the desirable social housing that still exists, you'd have to have been on a waiting list for about thirty years and /or have a pretty extreme set of social circumstances that bumped you up the points list.

Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that the Government will actually kick out thousands of pensioners et al from their existing homes, to 'make way' for those who are 'more deserving'. Even if they do succeed in pushing a few people out of their homes, it will be nowhere near enough to house all those on the waiting lists.

What they really need to be doing is committing to building more social housing. That isn't happening, nor will it, hence they are actually doing nothing at all that will have any sort of real impact on the current crisis in social housing. To claim that this amounts to 'dealing with' the problem, is laughable.

pleasedelete

[quote=[Deleted User];44176006]People being able to unfairly exploit another system doesn't mean we shouldn't stop this abuse.

Both systems need overhauling because of people like you. Ever thought of doings what's right, fair or honest? Or are you thinking of joining your cronies and becoming an MP as well?[/QUOTE]


Actually I didn't have a choice. I was made redundant and am being remployed as a contractor through a limited company. How can that be not is doing what is fair or honest? It is the system that is wrong not me!

Part of the reason I knew 2 of the 3 new Mps was because of the charity/voluntary work we were involved in. So yes we are all awful people trying to rip off the public!

I have worked 70 hours a week for 20 years in a public service role.I was paid for 37. In the end I earnt a good salary after years of doing a very harrowing job which lacks recruits.

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

No, what you have pointed out is a few pathetic plans to make very small adjustments to the rules as they stand.

The facts are that there's lots of moaning here about the rich qualifying for social housing, when actually, to get the desirable social housing that still exists, you'd have to have been on a waiting list for about thirty years and /or have a pretty extreme set of social circumstances that bumped you up the points list.

Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that the Government will actually kick out thousands of pensioners et al from their existing homes, to 'make way' for those who are 'more deserving'. Even if they do succeed in pushing a few people out of their homes, it will be nowhere near enough to house all those on the waiting lists.

What they really need to be doing is committing to building more social housing. That isn't happening, nor will it, hence they are actually doing nothing at all that will have any sort of real impact on the current crisis in social housing. To claim that this amounts to 'dealing with' the problem, is laughable.

So do you support those with incomes of over 100k a year, getting taxpayer subsidies for their living costs?

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So do you support those with incomes of over 100k a year, getting taxpayer subsidies for their living costs?

Couldn't care less because nowadays nobody on that sort of income is likely to be hanging about on a social housing waiting list. It's a massive red herring to deflect attention from the real issues. Well done Government PR team...it's certainly working here.

Graham_Devon

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Couldn't care less because nowadays nobody on that sort of income is likely to be hanging about on a social housing waiting list. It's a massive red herring to deflect attention from the real issues. Well done Government PR team...it's certainly working here.

It's nothing to do with the people on the waiting lists though.

It's all to do with the people already in the housing.

Am I to take it you are not particularly keen on the coalition? Is this more a political stance you are taking...as you seem to be making out the coalition are doing nothing to make anything better, due to a story that they are doing something.

milliebear00001

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the people on the waiting lists though.

It's all to do with the people already in the housing.

Am I to take it you are not particularly keen on the coalition? Is this more a political stance you are taking...as you seem to be making out the coalition are doing nothing to make anything better, due to a story that they are doing something.

I object to the fact that this story is clearly being pushed by the coalition to persuade people they are 'working hard' to overcome the housing shortage. It is clearly spin - which I always object to, no matter which party it originates from.

The 6000 or so people with high earnings in social housing are not the problem. The lack of social housing (created by mass sell-offs of existing stock) IS and that issue is clearly being ignored and avoided using smokescreens exactly like this story.