market rents budget

Brock_and_Roll

vsoe57 wrote: »

Nice news from the the budget NOTthe governments idea on charging housing association and council tenants current market rents if you earn over £40 k will throw lots of people on the streets that can mean two people on£ 20k will come into this mess I live in london suburbs and the market rents are a joke pushed up by estate agents and greedy landlords this joke from the this government will put my rent up by £700 A MONTH how is this possible will not be possible for me and countless others if this was mortgage this government would be out dont believe the hype from the press this is real help:mad:

Frankly, having looked at your other posts about your savings, pension and nice foreign holidays, I think you have a damn cheek to come on here moaning about having to pay a market rent for your house - wanting other taxpayers who don't claim a penny from the State to keep subsidising your lifestyle!

...and I am very much a moderate. Times have changed, attitudes have hardened and the party is very much over!

solentsusie

mrmoose wrote: »

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.

I personally find it particularly offensive that you state "Social housing is not a benefit". Of course it is a 'benefit'. It benefits those who are considered to be in a position where they are unable to afford a home of their own on the open market and are living in a property which has a subsidised rent.


Try getting on a social housing list these days and find out just how hard it is to be eligible for social housing - and remember, these days most housing is NOT owned by the local authority - Thatcher sold it off - but by Housing Associations which are mainly charitable trusts. You are very out of touch in your statement here.


New social housing is being built all of the time, Granted, nowhere near the amount that is required to meet the needs of society, so stating that most of it is over 50 years old and paid for is incorrect.


Both my son and his partner are earning circa 16K each, they pay a rent of £850 a month + council tax + bills outside of London. If they were in social housing their rent would literally be half of what it is in the area they live in. Is that fair? Well it would allow them to save up a nice deposit for their own house wouldn't it? They both work very hard and would never consider living on benefits. Perhaps they have a different attitude to most?


I don't believe for one second that you have to pay for a fallen down fence or an internal door - unless of course you have caused the damage! Fixtures and fittings like this are included in social housing maintenance. I know quite a few people who live in social housing and they don't pay for these things. They are also very fortunate in that they can decorate their property to their choosing, have a stable tenancy where they will not have to move in a years time and incur the very substantial costs this involves, and not have to worry about losing money from their deposit if they hang a picture on a wall and make a mark.


Sounds like you have lived a very lucky existence.

solentsusie

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

Frankly, having looked at your other posts about your savings, pension and nice foreign holidays, I think you have a damn cheek to come on here moaning about having to pay a market rent for your house - wanting other taxpayers who don't claim a penny from the State to keep subsidising your lifestyle!

...and I am very much a moderate. Times have changed, attitudes have hardened and the party is very much over!

I am sure my son and his partner wish they could afford nice foreign holidays whilst saving every penny they can to be able to afford a home of their own and not move house every five minutes...


Perhaps they should both give up work and have a baby to get on the housing list? Oh wait, once everyone buys their properties under RTB there won't be anywhere for them to be housed!


A lot of young people are not even paying into pensions so that they can afford to put a roof over their heads. It is a ticking time bomb for the future if we are not careful. Not that they will ever be able to afford to retire at this rate.


I for one will really not be losing any sleep over your rent increase from what I have seen on this post.


Good luck.

AdrianC

solentsusie wrote: »

and remember, these days most housing is NOT owned by the local authority - Thatcher sold it off

Well, Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron, if you want to ascribe it to individual PMs - but the concept dates back to a 1950s Labour party manifesto.

gazter

mrmoose wrote: »

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.

If most councils had paid off their residual housing debt, we would see much more new council housing. Councils were only prevented form using RTB proceeds to build new stock while they had debt. The reality is local authorities who retain their own stock are sitting on huge debts.

leveller2911

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.

No it shouldn't be weighted on market rents. The simple fact is people who live in London choose to live there, they are not forced to live there. The new rule allowing people in London to earn £40k before they pay rent rises just props up the London property/rental market.

The rest of the South East pays a price for being so close to London as people have made a killing on selling their London homes ,moved to the home counties and still commute into London to work. This has raised the property values everywhere in the South East within commuting distance. We all pay a price for living close to London....

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

Maybe not but they are able to earn £40k before rent rises will hit them so in that respect they are being given preferential treatment. Anyone who works and pays into the system should be seen as "Key workers". Just to add why do you believe Londoners are "special"?. I would love to live in Cornwall but can't afford it but I believe I'm a special case so can you please stump up some cash so I can relocate?.

dirty_magic

AdrianC wrote: »

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

This is the point I was making, I think it should be based on market rent for the whole country, not just London. It isn't practical because of the administration, but there's too much variation in cost in different areas to have one amount for the whole country. A couple living in Lincolnshire on 15k each could easily afford to pay market rent. A couple earning 20k each in London would find it harder. If we push lower earners out of London then who is going to do all the lower paid jobs?

dirty_magic

leveller2911 wrote: »

Just to add why do you believe Londoners are "special"?. I would love to live in Cornwall but can't afford it but I believe I'm a special case so can you please stump up some cash so I can relocate?.

I didn't say they were special, but it's fact that it's so much more expensive to live in London. I just don't think it's right to force lower earners out of London and make it a city of the elite.

leveller2911

dirty_magic wrote: »

I didn't say they were special, but it's fact that it's so much more expensive to live in London. I just don't think it's right to force lower earners out of London and make it a city of the elite.

But thats exactly what the previous government did with their "Key worker" programme. Teachers,nurses,police etc were deemed as being "special" and given preferential treatment with housing and mortgages which in turn made it even harder for everyone else on low wages to rent or buy. In my eyes a dutsman,sewage worker,farm workers etc are all "key workers" in making this country a success.

London should be left to find its own level without extra help. I can't see "self service" shops etc lasting long if everyone had left the city and wages will need to be attractive enough to keep low skilled workers in London but the moment you subsides one section of society another will suffer. .

Londons Housing problems are Londons doing, Kent and Sussex are not responsible for f*ck ups in planning around London so why should they suffer, they have their own housing problems. More and more homeless people and children are being dumped in the SE because London can't be bothered to address its own problems.

geoffken

Well i notice OP has not been back to post SOA if he really is in trouble budgeting although if he is putting £4350 into AVC's I doubt it.
Maybe he has realised just how well off he is?
I wonder how long he has lived in social housing at this sort of income?
Go George go get these parasites out to allow poorer people to have decent housing!!!