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

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

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

two families equally worthy

one lives in social housing for 25 years and then is given it for free

the other is unlucky enough not be live in social housing and it given nothing

a fair and just society?


the subsidy comes from the comparative value of the product.
if market rents were charged for all properties and only the actual people subsidised (based on need and not simply where they live) we could build massively more housing for the benefit of all.

leveller2911

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

Quite simple, if they don't work they sink. It sounds harsh but for years Governments have used the softly soflt approach and it clearly doesn't work so rather than more carrots I propose they start using the stick.

We had boom years from about 98 till 2007 and the same old workshy dole ites just sat back and took the money.

I would rather see an immigrant (legal) who moved here , worked and paid into the system be given priority for Social Housing over someone born here, 4 kids and claimed dole money from their 18th birthday....They should have their card stamped "no recourse to welfare benefits".

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

two families equally worthy

one lives in social housing for 25 years and then is given it for free

the other is unlucky enough not be live in social housing and it given nothing

a fair and just society?


the subsidy comes from the comparative value of the product.
if market rents were charged for all properties and only the actual people subsidised (based on need and not simply where they live) we could build massively more housing for the benefit of all.

No its not Just or fair and we need a massive house building programme but what we don't need is 250,000 private sector homes that no one can afford to buy. The problem is over priced private sector housing and not Social Housing rents.

You keep harping on about " Social Housing rents being far less than market rent values" and as such subsidised but you are comparing apples and pears."Market rents " are far too high as a proportion of average income and thats where the problem lies.

Ok I concede you probably won't like me if we met possibly due to the perception/stigma you have of Social Housing Tenants....

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

No its not Just or fair and we need a massive house building programme but what we don't need is 250,000 private sector homes that no one can afford to buy. The problem is over priced private sector housing.

You keep harping on about " Social Housing rents being far less than market rent values" and as such subsidised but you are comparing apples and pears."Market rents " are far too high as a proportion of average income and thats where the problem lies.

Ok I concede you probably won't like me if we met possibly due to the perception/stigma you have of Social Housing Tenants....

you have no reason to make comments about my attitudes to 'social housing tenants' nor do you know anything about my background.


My simple belief is that if we charged market rents for 'social' housing but subsidised (only) those that needed subsidy then we could fund the building of more housing.

I don't know what you mean about 250,000 houses that no-one can afford to buy
and I suggest to you that the more homes that are built will tend to reduce the price of all properties

I commend it as a sensible and practical contribution to providing more and better property at a cheaper price.

heathcote123

According to Government figures, 60,000 council tenants own a property of their own but chose to live in social housing instead.

There's the story.

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have no reason to make comments about my attitudes to 'social housing tenants' nor do you know anything about my background.


My simple belief is that if we charged market rents for 'social' housing but subsidised (only) those that needed subsidy then we could fund the building of more housing.

I don't know what you mean about 250,000 houses that no-one can afford to buy
and I suggest to you that the more homes that are built will tend to reduce the price of all properties

I commend it as a sensible and practical contribution to providing more and better property at a cheaper price.

Oh man-up a bit Clapton its an internet forum.

I have not the faintest clue what you do for a living but that smacks of Estate Agent/Mortgage Advisor bull sh*t. If the UK was the size of Australia you may have a point but its not , we are a small Island with limited space so although house prices in the Cities may drop a little it certainly won't in the thousands of small Towns and villages.

leveller2911

heathcote123 wrote: »

There's the story.

And its totally against any Social Housing tenancy agreement and if exposed the tenants would be evicted . The problem seems to be that there are few if any checks.

macaque_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Because they currently have lifetime tenancies Carl. Personally I think its a good idea. However given there are only 34,000 families affected, my sense is that it is purely tinkering, aimed at showing that they do hit "high earners" too. Oh, and I'm sure making Labour MPs and trade union leaders pay more will warm the cockles of Conservative hearts too.

Why do you think it is a good idea for high earners to have state subsidised housing whilst people in genuine need go without? I'm puzzled.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

Oh man-up a bit Clapton its an internet forum.

I have not the faintest clue what you do for a living but that smacks of Estate Agent/Mortgage Advisor bull sh*t. If the UK was the size of Australia you may have a point but its not , we are a small Island with limited space so although house prices in the Cities may drop a little it certainly won't in the thousands of small Towns and villages.

being a tolerant sort of chap one is willing to take a bit of silly abuse especially on a online forum, but once reasonable debate ceases so does my interest

Graham_Devon

It's the word subsidy which is the problem in discussions such as this. People define subsidy in so many different ways.

In this case, I would define a subsidy as a select group of people using a scarce tax payer owned resourse, covered by lifetime tenancies (believe they don't exist anymore?), and cut price rent (compared to any other rent across the country).

Added to this, when they are so many families living in accomodation that doesn't suit their needs, and council houses families wallowing around in taxpayer owned assets that are often bigger than their needs....again, I'd have it down as a subsidy....more a lifestyle subsidy.

Maybe not a subsidy only on monetry terms, but it's certainly a lifestyle subsidy for many, as many will now have something they would never be able to afford on the open market....putting them a step ahead of their peer group.

Take for instance my best mate. He, his wife and 2 kids live in a 2 bed flat. His kid's grandparents howevr, live in a 4 bed house, with 3 spare bedrooms. It was just the right place at the right time.....ones covered by contracts, one isn't and has to deal with it.