"High-earning council tenants will face paying full market rate for homes"- Telegraph

vivatifosi

drc wrote: »

Isn't the new lifetime tenancy rule only for new council tenants and not existing ones?

That's my understanding too. 5 years for new tenants, though don't think it has started yet. I also don't think that will stop further tinkering though at some point in the future.

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

I can't be @rsed to keep pointing out the facts on the subject but will go as far as to say (again) that Social Housing rents are set according to the "Fair rent" which is set as a percentage of the average wage.
They have no relation to HPI whereas private rents are set at a level so that the landlord can pay his mortgage,interest and profit margin....

Social Housing rents go to pay off the mortgage in the same way that private sector mortgages but the difference is they don't have to make a profit.

That said by the time that those who buy their homes under the RTB and RTA schemes will have paid for the build costs of the homes 3 times over and in the case of RTA still pay market value when they buy.

It's not all about build costs though.

We need these houses to home vulnerable people in. If it was all about how much it cost to build something, there are loads of things that this would apply too.

I don't get a lower tax bill because the street lamps in my street have now had their erection costs paid for.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You wouldn't be able to turn a profit, infact, you'd be at a constant loss if you rented the equivalent house as a BTL landlord at those prices.

Hence the subsidy.

You could if you had a portfolio built up over 50 years and they were mortgage free. Just depends what return on capital you are looking for.

The BTL new kid on the block will have to charge more because he is buying at a much inflated profit and only interest is to make a profit and capital gain, paying market rates of interest + a margin.

grizzly1911

leveller2911 wrote: »

Hopefully they will introduce rules so that people who have never worked and paid into the system will also be excluded from being allocated Social Housing.

Social Housing should be allocated on the basis of the tenant having already paid into the system.

So do we simply pay to keep them in BTL or B&B, to line landlords pockets, they have to go somewhere. Social housing should be cheaper across a portfolio of property.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

just explain why it is fair and just that one person in exactly the same general situation should pay less than the other?

Two separate families in exactly the same position, should be be net, be in the same position.

Doesn't the level of benefit reflect the cost? If the social housing is cheaper then less benefit will be paid?

If one family earns more than a certain threshold then the top social rent should be paid.

Again this is London SE distortion.

Council housing used to work and many places were OK places to live. Accept some weren't so good but that was down to social engineering.

drc

It's just stupid and such a waste of money. They should just use the money they currently use to pay private landlords to house those on LHA to build more social homes but that is never going to happen as there are currently those in private rented accommodation only make up something like 25% of the electorate and landlords have more money and influence at present. In a few years time when the majority are forced to privately rent I expect the government of the time to take much more notice of the inequality and deprivation forced upon the rentier class by the haves and expect there will be quite a lot of changes in the housing system.

The-Joker

drc wrote: »

Makes me wonder if this is the start of slowly raising the rent of almost all social rented homes to be on a par with the private sector?

From The Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9275686/High-earning-council-tenants-will-face-paying-full-market-rate-for-homes.html

Or could it more akin to the private sector rents coming down a bit as well so they meet in the middle.

geri1965_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

just explain why it is fair and just that one person in exactly the same general situation should pay less than the other?

Your previous argument wasn't about fairness, it was about subsidies.

However, if the two people in your hypothetical argument are in exactly the same situation, then they would both be entitled to the same thing. How is that unfair?

Niv

drc wrote: »

It's just stupid and such a waste of money. They should just use the money they currently use to pay private landlords to house those on LHA to build more social homes but that is never going to happen as there are currently those in private rented accommodation only make up something like 25% of the electorate and landlords have more money and influence at present. In a few years time when the majority are forced to privately rent I expect the government of the time to take much more notice of the inequality and deprivation forced upon the rentier class by the haves and expect there will be quite a lot of changes in the housing system.

I agree that more council housing should be built, however, I only think this should happen if the 'right to buy' is abolished. Council housing should be a stock of houses available for the vulnerable, not a commodity for the councils to sell at will when they need to make their budgets balance.

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

well the 'cost' of much social is ZERO according to your theory i.e. anything build more than 25years ago has zero financing costs


so take three families exactly equal in income and family situation

1. one lives in a 30 year social property and pay virtually no rent (well maintence cost only)

2. one lives in a 10 year old social housing block so pay loads of rent to pay for the mortgage and maintenance

3. one live in a 'private ' property and pays even more


that seems to your utopia paradise

I call it a subsidy and consider it grossly unfair and socially divisive;
ok I accept you don't so we will have to agree to disagree

How about this scenario:

House built in 1993 family moves in.Over the next 20yrs they pay in rent 2.5 x the build cost of the house.The HA agree that the finance for the house was indeed settled.

Each year the ongoing maintenance costs are 1: Boiler service £70-00 . New kitchen every 20yrs, new windows every 20yrs so about £200-00 per year. Total Maintenance each year of around £ 350-00 per year.

The family work and receive no housing benefit or Council tax benefit so the FACT is the income from that house can be used to finance another build by the HA.

Once the house build cost is paid off the house becomes an income stream for the HA for many years to come.

Subsidised? behave If the tenants didn't work and received Housing Benefit then yes that would be subsidised but the majority of tenant probably work and pay their way in life.It may be difficult to grasp but they do, try and look past the stereotypes and if we ever met you may like me......:D

I like classical music, antiques and History and not into Jessie J and 50" Plasma TV,s.....