Concerned about Government plans for social housing

fusionx212

OK I'll leave it there for today. just expect a wave of newcomers to the debt boards around April next year.. and remember back to what I put here.

I don't need to be lectured by the supposedly supportive members of the MSE forums. because I posted honestly.

and reading Tim what I do with my own time is none of your concern.

I don't need a breakdown of how fair you see it or how you didn't run with wild gazelle in the Olympics.

I do expect the courtesy you read my comments and acknowledge the information that will affect thousands of people.

I have all the sympathy in the world to those less fortunate to me. So much so I can see this being huge and it's being brushed to the side


my one mistake here was being honest . which you assume gives you the right to compare me to some money stealing monster to which I am not.

feel free to carry on with the holier than thou approach

and good luck with all your money issues too

lazer

Puddylove wrote: »

You earn far more than the average, you have chosen to have the luxury of children, and yet you want me and other taxpayers to pay your rent?

That's effectively what is happening. It's not sustainable for everyone to be subsidised - where would you draw the line? The top 50% earners should subsidise the bottom 50%?

We should all fund the bottom 25% in terms of income?

I earn about the same as you. I couldn't afford children. I can't afford a house. I wouldn't apply for a council house because I can pay private rental, and council housing should be for those who NEED it, not those who WANT it, like you.

Social house is not subsidised - it is not for profit. The council and social houses do not lose money by having the rents set at current levels, they can afford to set them at that level as they have lower overheads than many landlords with large BTL mortgages etc, and who want a large return on their investment.

tlc678910

Hi Fusion,

**Apologies for the epic post – I find the topic complex and interesting and had a google but if it doesn’t float your boat then I’d skip it!

I hope things work out for you and I think it is very difficult to suddenly introduce policies that impact on people negatively all of a sudden but I would like you to consider a few figures and see what you think. (The figures I found are from 2014 but I think the principle in general will be sound).

While the average salary is £26,500 the bottom 10% of earners earn a median income of £8,600

The next 10% earn a median £11,300, the next 10% 13,200 (bear with me please ) the next 10% £15,300 and the next £17,600.

We can see that around 50% of people earn less than £17,600 a year.

While you argue that “you are not in the top 50%” your earnings as an individual place you in the top 30% of earners.

The average family with two children in 2016 (Edit sorry 2014 so I guess will have upped a tad bit) had an after tax income of £31,000. Even as a family with a sole earner I expect you achieve this income. I would think that your wife also has some funding of some sort from her studies. So I do think I can challenge your assertion that “I would like to see anyone else that can do it” when referring to supporting your children and wife on your income as it seems that the “average” family is doing almost exactly that i.e. managing on £31K household income after tax.

I’m interested in whether your views about continued entitlement to a lower than market rent are as strong if you accept that your family has an average income and you as an individual are in the top 30% of earners?

Do you think the policy would be OK if it were phased in slowly (say over 10 years) between starting rent and market rent?

Although there is debate about whether the social rent is actually “subsidised” or just cheaper do you think it’s justified to hang onto social rent when 30% of people earn less that £13,200 and need those low rents?

Data from (The Guardian article “How does your salary compare”) The article is from 25 March 2014 so the figures will have gone up a tad I expect. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare
Telegraph article "Average incomes return to pre-recession levels", 4 March 2014

T

fusionx212

Hi Tlc, thanks for your thought out reply. I see your point and in principle I do agree with the need for fairer rents etc.

as per Lazer10's reply, which was pretty useful to know. (I do not expect to be living in social housing forever, I am aware of the difference of my salary compared to others)

Social house is not subsidised - it is not for profit. The council and social houses do not lose money by having the rents set at current levels, they can afford to set them at that level as they have lower overheads than many landlords with large BTL mortgages etc, and who want a large return on their investment.

I think the threshold should be raised to fairer amount. I do not live in London but I live in a London catchment area for travelling to and from London. As such renting is pretty steep for a 3 bedroom house, my current house comes in at say £1100 a month roughly.

I don't have a view of entitlement, I have a realistic view that this will affect quite a few people and principally me.

There is a website petitioning to raise the limit, as 30,000 limit is too low a marker and it actually does a lot to put people off from going and seeking the ability to better themselves by earning more

for exmaple your new pay rise increases your monthly pay by £200. This puts you over the limit and you now have to pay £600 a month rent more for market rate. Most people won't be able do that. or they do and straight away the thin line of living above water they start to sink.

they have also said the charge will be done voluntarily by the social housing with a tapering affect so may well be done over time it's all speculation and this topic was to bring it up with people.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/increase-the-threshold-for-pay-to-stay

Some people on lower salaries receive housing benefit along side salaries to cover the bulk of their rents.

I do not receive nor have I ever. I had money troubles but I also have nearly cleared them with the help of job progression.

I do have 2 children one of which I took on at age 18, again not anyone's responsibility but mine. this did affect me financially but also made me realise the need progress and earn more.
I want nothing more than to by a house but that is impracticable and impossible at the present moment and more so if I have to pay what a landlord locally dictates is "Market rates for my area"

the problem is with Market rent compared to social rent, They need to bring a universal scale to the rent for both private and social

This is all caused by the governments policy on allowing landlords to have massive land grabs of the social housing markets to which they are now trying to stop with the new policies but the damage is already done.

The government have potentially just priced a large proportion of people out of renting and bettering them selves. everyone is in a different position and a one size fits all approach just does not work.

I get it's a fine balance, however the balance is a bit lopsided..

autumn2012_2

We currently have a household income of around 28k - we own our 3 bed home and pay a mortgage of 275 per month. We have 2 children and 20k of debt. I have to work on an evening around my husbands job. We manage. However in the OPs defence - social housing is not taxpayer subsidised at all. Most social housing goes for about the market rate. I do not believe just because you earn over 30k you should get a rent hike - its a systematic cleansing of the social housing/welfare state. I believe the government have u-turned on this anyway but 37k is a decent amount to live on.

lazer

tlc678910 wrote: »

Hi Fusion,

**Apologies for the epic post – I find the topic complex and interesting and had a google but if it doesn’t float your boat then I’d skip it!

I hope things work out for you and I think it is very difficult to suddenly introduce policies that impact on people negatively all of a sudden but I would like you to consider a few figures and see what you think. (The figures I found are from 2014 but I think the principle in general will be sound).

While the average salary is £26,500 the bottom 10% of earners earn a median income of £8,600

The next 10% earn a median £11,300, the next 10% 13,200 (bear with me please ) the next 10% £15,300 and the next £17,600.

We can see that around 50% of people earn less than £17,600 a year.

While you argue that “you are not in the top 50%” your earnings as an individual place you in the top 30% of earners.

The average family with two children in 2016 (Edit sorry 2014 so I guess will have upped a tad bit) had an after tax income of £31,000. Even as a family with a sole earner I expect you achieve this income. I would think that your wife also has some funding of some sort from her studies. So I do think I can challenge your assertion that “I would like to see anyone else that can do it” when referring to supporting your children and wife on your income as it seems that the “average” family is doing almost exactly that i.e. managing on £31K household income after tax.

I’m interested in whether your views about continued entitlement to a lower than market rent are as strong if you accept that your family has an average income and you as an individual are in the top 30% of earners?

Do you think the policy would be OK if it were phased in slowly (say over 10 years) between starting rent and market rent?

Although there is debate about whether the social rent is actually “subsidised” or just cheaper do you think it’s justified to hang onto social rent when 30% of people earn less that £13,200 and need those low rents?

Data from (The Guardian article “How does your salary compare”) The article is from 25 March 2014 so the figures will have gone up a tad I expect. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare
Telegraph article "Average incomes return to pre-recession levels", 4 March 2014

T

Actually £37k salary works out at £28k after tax, and that's excluding student loan if applicable and pension.


Add in Student loan deductions and 5% pension contribution and you are down to £25k.


I have run a set of details through the entitled to.com


couple, 1 working 20 hours a week at £10 an hour (Net is £9,600 a year). 2 children 1 aged under 4, another aged 5-9. 2nd Parent not working.


Living in South Oxfordshire paying rent of £200 a week.


They would be entitled to £19k of benefits (£10k housing benefit, £1k council tax, £2k child benefit and £6k tax credits) total income of £28k, so would actually be better of than the OP (assuming student loan and pension).

lazer

Fusion,


Are you sure you are not currently entitled to any help with rent.


I ran a £37k salary through the entitled 2 website, and you get £44 a week housing benefit? (But this is assuming £200 a week rent)


If you aren't entitled to help with rent now, you might be when rents go up

tlc678910

lazer wrote: »

I have run a set of details through the entitled to.com


couple, 1 working 20 hours a week at £10 an hour (Net is £9,600 a year). 2 children 1 aged under 4, another aged 5-9. 2nd Parent not working.


Living in South Oxfordshire paying rent of £200 a week.


They would be entitled to £19k of benefits (£10k housing benefit, £1k council tax, £2k child benefit and £6k tax credits) total income of £28k, so would actually be better of than the OP (assuming student loan and pension).

The info that was posted about the changes said that people on housing benefit will not be affected so it could be the way to go :think: and a lot more time with the children and for hobbies :rotfl:

Edit: on a serious note that's why I do agree with the benefit cap for household income. The OP studied (self directed) and works hard for what I consider a very good salary. That it can be matched by doing nothing or very little is sad.

indesisiv

I agree in principal to the threshold although as an arbitrary figure I would up it to £35k. I know of many people that live in council houses that have salaries that are easily more than this.
I do think that a £37k salary is a good salary compared to most!

spadoosh

Hi All, is anyone else concerned about the government plans for social housing
I earn just under 37k a year, with 2 kids and a wife who is in full time education. I rent a housing association house, I have arrears which are being paid off and I had quite severe debt problems. This is going to sting my family massively and potentially ruin all my plans of becoming debt free.
I have no chance in hell of ever escaping renting and owning my own property.

I'm surprised this is not being picked up more by the media and other families in the same situation.

is there anything we can do or is being done.

This government seems to be out to really screw over hard working people,

Not at all concerned. Im under 30, our household (2 adults, 1 dog and a baby due) earns less than your individual wage and we own our own property so not concerned about government plans for social housing.

I cant imagine there is that many people in social housing who have individual incomes of £37,000+. In fact i would hazard a guess that a good portion of social housing tenants will largely be unaffected by the proposals.

You could lobby mp's or seek legal help if you wish to challenge things.

You're the only person working in your household and are allowed to live in social housing at reduced rents compared to other people in your area earning £37,000. I cant help but think that you're not the person getting screwed over here.