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

MissMoneypenny

Italy decides who should have social housing, on a yearly basis. If you don't fit into that criteria, then you leave the property. They treat social housing as a stopgap and not a way of life. They also have very strict rules on who can have social housing in the first place.

Kennyboy66

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.

This is true, but surely people are confusing 3 separate issues.

1) Should high earners get a subsidised rent ? - of course not.

2) Should high earners, not currently in it be allocated social housing ? - Not while there is a chronic shortage

3) Should high earners be forced out of social housing IF they are paying a market rent ? - I would say to do so seems petty, vindictive and achieves very little other than the day The Daily Mail can photograph Bob Crow getting evicted.

Yet another example of the pathetic small mindedness and over bearing nanny state that is increasingly common in the UK.

chewmylegoff

leveller2911 wrote: »

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

They wouldnt lose their tenancy they would have the choice to pay or move.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

This is true, but surely people are confusing 3 separate issues.

1) Should high earners get a subsidised rent ? - of course not.

2) Should high earners, not currently in it be allocated social housing ? - Not while there is a chronic shortage

3) Should high earners be forced out of social housing IF they are paying a market rent ? - I would say to do so seems petty, vindictive and achieves very little other than the day The Daily Mail can photograph Bob Crow getting evicted.

Yet another example of the pathetic small mindedness and over bearing nanny state that is increasingly common in the UK.

I thought that social housing didn't charge a market rent. That's certainly the case in the places I've checked rents.

If people are paying a market rent I don't think there'd be a problem but I don't think they are in SE England and London at least.

chewmylegoff

pleasedelete wrote: »

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!
.

Well most people cannot choose to receive their remuneration in what you term as a tax efficient manner.

And even if they could choose to be paid through a Ltd company, for most people this would not be more efficient because of IR35. In reality though, IR35 is not properly enforced and a lot of people are able to evade tax with impunity. Further there is widespread abuse of the system in claiming ineligible expenses (such as lunch every day) as a corporation tax deductible expense.

robmatic

Generali wrote: »

I thought that social housing didn't charge a market rent. That's certainly the case in the places I've checked rents.

If people are paying a market rent I don't think there'd be a problem but I don't think they are in SE England and London at least.

Indeed, having social housing where people pay a market rent seems somewhat silly.

pleasedelete

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Well most people cannot choose to receive their remuneration in what you term as a tax efficient manner.

And even if they could choose to be paid through a Ltd company, for most people this would not be more efficient because of IR35. In reality though, IR35 is not properly enforced and a lot of people are able to evade tax with impunity. Further there is widespread abuse of the system in claiming ineligible expenses (such as lunch every day) as a corporation tax deductible expense.

I think I made the point that a system that makes you better off by working in a different way is wrong. You shouldn't be better off working through a limited company but in practice you are. There are probably millions pay g less tax in this way. It needs an overhaul.
It wasn't a choice. It was ltd company or unemployment. iR35 is fine- it has been checked (and then double checked). Basically work for lots of small people directly but commissioned centrally (as a collective buyer they get better deal) They pay individually. Ex employer acts as an agency in effect.

I could of course just carry on signing on , pay no tax and get £1700 odd in jsa?
I don't eat lunch.

Kennyboy66

robmatic wrote: »

Indeed, having social housing where people pay a market rent seems somewhat silly.

Why ?

One of the biggest attractions is security of tenure. Turnover in the social sector is very low (less than 5%).

In the private sector, turnover is closer to 30%.

Since assured shorthold tenancies were introduced in 1988 the market does not seem to provide a solution for the desire for long term tenancies.

Loughton_Monkey

What happens if the £100K all comes from benefits?

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

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

Noone seems to have responded to this, and I think it must be a question many people have. Thing is LA housing isn't all its own bad press, and secondly, there are ''postcodes'' in London unaffordable (without subsidy) to even higher end of middle income workers. I've thought very hard about phrasing it, because I know to many £100k seems much hiher than ''middle income'' and percentage wise is, but it is not a lifestyle changing amount of income...you still need mortgages and your job to sustain anything, but I don't want to cause offence to anyone.

e.g. I can think of two rather wonderful lowrise blocks of largish family fats in exclusive postcodes that people on a £100k income and a 20/25% deposit still couldn't afford the private market equivalent of. And that's just in two tiny pockets of London. Solidly built, not unattractive buildings within a five minute stroll of transport and some pretty lovely places to eat, drink and party that you certainly would have to limit going to if you were paying a mortgage or market rent with an income of £100k.

I can think of other London LA places, less ''metropolitan dream'' but they have off street parking....price comparisons of which are fairly easy to check, and are sufficient to absorb a substantial portion of a good middle income salary.

Its not such an odd choice (though Imo not a moral one, not sustainable for the public purse) once you consider some locations, buildings and lifestyles.