market rents budget

mrmoose

I have 3 issues with this policy

1. Social housing is not a benefit. Almost all housing stock was built over 50 years ago - and have been long paid for. The costs of the upkeep are not the same as the rents being charged now (Most LA make a profit on their social housing provision which they pass to the government). This is really a tax on earning more whilst living in social housing - hence it is being paid back to the tresury. If the money could be retained by the LA to fund new housing to replace those sold off, then this would be a better policy.

2. The average salary in the UK is about £26k. 2 people working full time on £15k outside London are not high earners, and this is a disincentive to work. By 2020, 2 people on the new living wage of £9 will have an income £34k, based on a 37 hour week. I do agree that some should pay more, but those limits just seem a little to low, and make me think that maybe this is to encourage those who may be able to buy their house under RTB at a discount to do so, rather than pay increased rents?

3. Social tenants have to carpet, decorate, and do some maintainance of their own property. If the garden fence falls down and needs replacing for instance, most councils will expect the tenant to replace this at their own expense. Same with internal doors. To expect them to pay Market rent, and still fund repairs themselves seems harsh.

4. LA have no information currently on the income of their tenants. To collect all this information, and work out who needs to pay more will be a costly administrative task for possible tens of thousands of propertys.

HappyMJ

mrmoose wrote: »

3. Social tenants have to carpet, decorate, and do some maintainance of their own property. If the garden fence falls down and needs replacing for instance, most councils will expect the tenant to replace this at their own expense. Same with internal doors. To expect them to pay Market rent, and still fund repairs themselves seems harsh.

It's market rent for the same property let without the floor coverings and without the cooker, the fridge, freezer, washing machine and the dryer which my privately rented flat comes with and if I were eligible would all be covered by housing benefit as it's all part of the rent. I also don't pay service charges (it's included in the rent) which I do believe most in social housing do pay.

The market rent for my flat might be about 20% less than what I actually pay if all that was excluded.

dirty_magic

leveller2911 wrote: »

I don't disagree with you but IMO London should not be treated as a special case.

Why should people be able to earn £10k more inside London than anyone else that lives in a high rent area such as the South East. The new rules appear to be £30k income outside London and £40k inside London.

Seems to me the Twittering London dinner set are looking after their own and f*ck the rest of the country.No changer there then..;)

I disagree with this. I think it should be weighted on market rent prices everywhere. 30k in Licolnshire is a world away from £40k in London. Try finding a 1 bed flat for £250 pcm in London. It's possible in Lincolnshire.

Not everyone in London is rich, why should we make it a city that only the rich can afford?

AdrianC

If somebody is earning £40k/year, they can afford a LOT more than £250/mo rent.

If somebody doesn't like paying London rents, there's nothing stopping them moving to Lincolnshire. Sure, salaries are a lot lower, but there are other options. A season ticket from (say) Spalding to London isn't cheap, £7,750 - less than £650/mo - but if London property prices are so unreasonable, it may well be an economically viable option... It's less than an hour and a half each way - not much longer than some places near the M25 - so, yes, it is viable. I've worked in London with people with a similar or longer daily commute.

People live in London because they WANT to live in London, and there is a price to pay for that choice.

Innys1

dirty_magic wrote: »

I disagree with this. I think it should be weighted on market rent prices everywhere. 30k in Licolnshire is a world away from £40k in London. Try finding a 1 bed flat for £250 pcm in London. It's possible in Lincolnshire.

Not everyone in London is rich, why should we make it a city that only the rich can afford?

I think Leveller's post was intended to encourage a cooling of the housing market in London.

What they fail to appreciate is the demand is so strong there that should tenants relying on Govt susbidy be forced to move elsewhere, their place will be taken by tenants who pay the rent in full themselves. No change.

geoffken

well it seems from other posts by OP that he is paying £4350 into pension in AVC and looking at holidays so perhaps some special pleading.
As a railway worker he is probably not flavour of the month in the SE but maybe he too is unable to get to work today or even on strike himself

AdrianC

geoffken wrote: »

well it seems from other posts by OP that he is paying £4350 into pension in AVC and looking at holidays so perhaps some special pleading.

He's also charging his live-at-home son a "market rent"...

'course, if you add his higher-rate taxpayer salary to that live-at-home son's salary, you end up somewhere around £60k/annum household income. Before considering anything his spouse/partner earns.

onlyroz

How much is the rent on a council property compared to "market rates"? E.g. what would a council tenant in a 2-bed London council flat be paying?

geoffken

Looks like this household is EXACTLY the ones targeted by George.
Why should I on less than 15.000 a year pay taxes to subsidise him.
I guess Bob Crow (RMT) started this problem and here is the result.
I wonder if it will be called "The Bob Crow" tax just like "bedroom tax"

FBaby

this joke from the this government will put my rent up by £700 A MONTH

So how much will it be all together, ie. how much are you paying now? I think we can have more sympathy if we actually knew the full figure.