Should better off council tenants receive subsidy

Concerned75

I'm just wondering the views of members on here regarding council tenants subsidised despite in a reasonable financial situation.
There was a lot of hoo harr regarding the bedroom tax and whether tenants on their own should live in a smaller property. I personally don't think anyone should be removed out of their council house because their finances have increased, but I do think they should be given the option to buy or certainly pay the going rent for that property/area.
Why should people be earning £100k as the trade Union was and still subsided in their council house by min wage taxpayers??
An injustice that needs a reform. Wouldn't go a miss in this years election either going forward!
Constructive comments welcomed.

Doozergirl

Social Housing is not subsidised by anyone, let alone minimum wage earners who pay very little in the way of income tax.

Social housing is reasonable rent. When people have to privately rent in cupboards in London for £1000 a month, you know the world's gone mad!

Miss_Samantha

Doozergirl wrote: »

Social Housing is not subsidised by anyone,
...
Social housing is reasonable rent.

Social housing is subsidised housing. That's the whole point.

Providers are funded by local authorities and the government, and thus obviously tax payers are ultimately funding social housing.

Social housing should be reserved for the poorer and anyone whose income then rises above a threshold should be asked to leave.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Social housing is subsidised housing. That's the whole point.

Providers are funded by local authorities and the government, and thus obviously tax payers are ultimately funding social housing.

Social housing should be reserved for the poorer and anyone whose income then rise above a threshold should be asked to leave.

Or asked to pay a higher rate which can be used to subsidise other housing options

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

Or asked to pay a higher rate which can be used to subsidise other housing options

This is the case (or was proposed) but that does not work, IMO:

You still end up with one less social housing unit (the one still occupied by the now higher earner) but the extra money you make on the higher rent isn't enough to build a new housing unit.

So your social housing stock decreases.

pimento

We could have them pick oakum in their spare time as well while we're at it.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

This is the case (or was proposed) but that does not work, IMO:

You still end up with one less social housing unit (the one still occupied by the now higher earner) but the extra money you make on the higher rent isn't enough to build a new housing unit.

So your social housing stock decreases.

I agree that is an issue.


To me the problem of moving out tenants who start to earn more: it demotivates tenants to actually make a go of it. Would you get a better paid job / work more hours if you knew you'd end up at the mercy of the private rental sector?

MEM62

Social housing should absolutely be available for those that need it. And it should be provided based on need.

There should be sufficient social housing stock in this country so that Councils are not forced to waste £££ millions putting families into privately rented properties. It is a farce.

There should be a system whereby those in social housing who's finances improve should have the rent increased (perhaps based on some kind of affordability scale) until it reaches market levels for similar properties.

Couples that have large social housing properties because they once had large families should not be allowed to rattle around in 4 or 5 bedroom houses years after the kids have flown the nest.

Just my opinion.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

Would you get a better paid job / work more hours if you knew you'd end up at the mercy of the private rental sector?

Normal people who want a better life?

When I wrote that social housing should be reserved for the 'poorer', I meant really poorer not just slightly below average.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Normal people who want a better life?

When I wrote that social housing should be reserved for the 'poorer', I meant really poorer not just slightly below average.

Many people would, but as you say, typically those in social housing are at the lower economic scale, so paying moving costs, application fees etc could be an additional burden.


Also, whilst not universal, many people are on low skilled zero hour contracts. So their wages may be at a decent level seasonally, or due to being 'in' with management, but there is an added risk of not getting those same hours down the line.


A private LL would not adjust the rent to match the income.

pimento

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Normal people who want a better life?

When I wrote that social housing should be reserved for the 'poorer', I meant really poorer not just slightly below average.

That sounds a bit like a ghetto to me.