Tory council leader believes ‘basic salary’ is 80k

Loughton_Monkey

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

The average of 16,991 and nine 17,001 is 17,000 and the majority is more than 17,000.

So your basic maths is wrong.

...er... that may be Welsh maths, but in England, salary distributions are heavily skewed. Just think how much the handful of people on incomes of £2m add to the average.

Hence in such a distribution, the majority of people must be lower than the average. The 'median' salary is always far lower than the average salary, and is the value at which exactly the same number of people are above the median than below.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really believe that enough houses can be build in London and surrounding areas to reduce prices to a level where low paid workers can afford properties without HB.

No
No
No

I have already said a least a dozen times that PEOPLE should be subsidised where necessary and not PROPERTY.

However, I also think that standards for HB should not be higher than those for the rest of society.

And of course government should remove the barriers to new builds.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There is no reason why children should "inherit" the property of the late tenant. If they have a need for accommodation then this should be assessed and something suitable provided.

I would agree, but sadly the rules are that if the children are living there at the time, there's nothing the council can do to evict them.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

No
No
No

I have already said a least a dozen times that PEOPLE should be subsidised where necessary and not PROPERTY.

However, I also think that standards for HB should not be higher than those for the rest of society.

And of course government should remove the barriers to new builds.

This is where we differ I believe that it would be better for housing for the low paid to be owned by government, although in the short term the cost would be similar the benefits would be felt in the future just as it is for a home owner.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There is no reason why children should "inherit" the property of the late tenant. If they have a need for accommodation then this should be assessed and something suitable provided.

The escalating costs will continue because unfortunately there population continues to grow, disposable income for many is falling and a large percentage will not meet prudent lending guidelines, to allow purchase, for a whole host of reasons. Even the relatively prosperous are in need of government subsidy.

On the basis that we the taxpayer will have to fund it (accommodation), regardless of our beliefs, I would like it done in the most cost effective, efficient way. I have yet to be convinced that funding "BTL" social housing meets either criteria on a long term basis.

If there was no HB (or at a lower level) then people probably would balance the desirability of living in expensive areas with maybe lower wages elsewhere.

a win win situation as it would boost economic activity outside the expensive SE and also reduce the pressure in the SE too.

so people would get better housing, the tax bill would be less and more economic activity outside the SE

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

This is where we differ I believe that it would be better for housing for the low paid to be owned by government, although in the short term the cost would be similar the benefits would be felt in the future just as it is for a home owner.

why do you believe

-a live long tenancy should be based on the economic circumstances of people because they were once poor even if their circumstance drastically change?

-a couple should continue to occupy (say) a 4 bed house after there children have left home at a heavily subsidised rent whilst people in real need with children are living in B&B

-that social housing should be allocated by politicians?

-people should be restricted where they can live as once they get a subsidised property they will rarely move

-that people who become well off should be subsidised by people who are poorer

etc etc

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

On the basis that we the taxpayer will have to fund it (accommodation), regardless of our beliefs, I would like it done in the most cost effective, efficient way. I have yet to be convinced that funding "BTL" social housing meets either criteria on a long term basis.

So shove a young unemployed couple and their 3 kids in a nice subsidised council house, at the usual heavily subsidised rent. Give them HB (as they would no doubt qualify) so they live there rent free.

Three years later, the lad finds a good job, and missus earns a bit part time and they no longer qualify for HB. So now let them stay on subsidised rent for the next 60 years - followed by their children? I don't call that 'cost effective'.

"Ah", I hear you say, "yea but no but yea but no but... the house could have a commercial full rent." In which case you are just about agreeing with Clappers, with the exception that you are costing this set of taxpayers the most exhorbitant building costs (20Xannual rent?) to supply all the new houses, at a time of near record government debt? Crazy idea!

I see nothing wrong with the 'concept' of when governments are 'solvent', with little or no debt, and there is a lull in growth, that this might be the time to do a bit of "Keynes" and build a few houses for future use. If future need justified it. But I would do it on the basis of full commercial rent. But I would let the house out initially only to those who qualified for some form of subsidy (not necessarily full rent). The minute they ceased to qualify, I would give 6 months notice (at full commercial rent) to clear off so that the house could be rented out to another 'needy' family at the top of the waiting list.

However, it wouldn't take long for the [local] government to tire of all this nonsense and question what the hell they are doing trying to emulate what professional landlords already do?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you believe

-a live long tenancy should be based on the economic circumstances of people because they were once poor even if their circumstance drastically change?

-a couple should continue to occupy (say) a 4 bed house after there children have left home at a heavily subsidised rent whilst people in real need with children are living in B&B

-that social housing should be allocated by politicians?

-people should be restricted where they can live as once they get a subsidised property they will rarely move

-that people who become well off should be subsidised by people who are poorer

etc etc

- Why do you have to have life tenancies>? Why can't individual tenancies be periodically reviewed for changing circumstances and rents changed accordingly? Is HB reviewed?

- If there was sufficient suitable housing stock then they could be moved to more suitable accommodation. The present government has done exactly that but negated to provide the alternative accomodation.

- Who should allocate and decide housing need? Who should allocate and decide HB need?

- If people are wholly reliant on HB they are unlikely to move unless the landlord pull the rug. Many low paid workers, who are partly reliant on HB, amongst other benefits, are needed to service high cost areas. Many of those lost paid workers are employed directly or indirectly by the government providing essential services.

- Why should well off people be subsidised? Periodic review of means could allow full market rents to be charged. How many really rich people would stay in any great numbers or is it just Bob Crow that offends you?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

- Why do you have to have life tenancies>? Why can't individual tenancies be periodically reviewed for changing circumstances and rents changed accordingly? Is HB reviewed?

- If there was sufficient suitable housing stock then they could be moved to more suitable accommodation. The present government has done exactly that but negated to provide the alternative accomodation.

- Who should allocate and decide housing need? Who should allocate and decide HB need?

- If people are wholly reliant on HB they are unlikely to move unless the landlord pull the rug. Many low paid workers, who are partly reliant on HB, amongst other benefits, are needed to service high cost areas. Many of those lost paid workers are employed directly or indirectly by the government providing essential services.

- Why should well off people be subsidised? Periodic review of means could allow full market rents to be charged. How many really rich people would stay in any great numbers or is it just Bob Crow that offends you?

basically you are agreeing that social housing is totally flawed
but you think in could be changed.

just like the soviet planners: each plan failed so the solution was always more detailed plans which failed so the solution was more detailed plans
the real answer was no plans at all.

if there were no subsidies but a high demand for labour for 'essential services' in high cost areas, then the price (wages) would rise:
a win for the poor and no need to plan for nonsense social housing

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So shove a young unemployed couple and their 3 kids in a nice subsidised council house, at the usual heavily subsidised rent. Give them HB (as they would no doubt qualify) so they live there rent free.

Three years later, the lad finds a good job, and missus earns a bit part time and they no longer qualify for HB. So now let them stay on subsidised rent for the next 60 years - followed by their children? I don't call that 'cost effective'.

"Ah", I hear you say, "yea but no but yea but no but... the house could have a commercial full rent." In which case you are just about agreeing with Clappers, with the exception that you are costing this set of taxpayers the most exhorbitant building costs (20Xannual rent?) to supply all the new houses, at a time of near record government debt? Crazy idea!

I see nothing wrong with the 'concept' of when governments are 'solvent', with little or no debt, and there is a lull in growth, that this might be the time to do a bit of "Keynes" and build a few houses for future use. If future need justified it. But I would do it on the basis of full commercial rent. But I would let the house out initially only to those who qualified for some form of subsidy (not necessarily full rent). The minute they ceased to qualify, I would give 6 months notice (at full commercial rent) to clear off so that the house could be rented out to another 'needy' family at the top of the waiting list.

However, it wouldn't take long for the [local] government to tire of all this nonsense and question what the hell they are doing trying to emulate what professional landlords already do?

Why would you pay them HB and give them reduced or no rent? Why would you charge them full commercial rent and then pay them HB? Surely it would make more sense to net the positions off unless chasing wooden dollars makes the process more efficient in some way.

As you surmise if they are in a position to pay full rents and wish to stay then they can be charged. There does not need to be any automatic right of children to reside, after their parents have expired. If they have a need then they should be assessed accordingly and suitable accommodation provided. Similarly with sufficient accommodation, of suitable sizes, parents whose children have flown the nest could be incentivised to downsize.

We continue to find £20bn a year in HB and increasing so I am sure a proportion could be migrated to servicing the debt as it is built and admin costs. We would no doubt find the money to bomb (enter) a country if we felt [STRIKE]civil liberties were being breached[/STRIKE] our energy supplies were at risk. We find the money to send 50% of youngsters to university with no guarantee of repayment.

Is government debt higher than after the war?

I am not sure local councils/social landlords would tire providing they were adequate funded.

If it is better for individuals to buy rather than rent why doesn't the same apply to government? The need is not going to go away as the population grows, disposable income falls and people live for longer.