Should better off council tenants receive subsidy

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

Well that's household income, so would be the same - ie paying full rent, or even over market rent. Again evicting those people wouldn't help if they then broke up?

As said, making them pay full rent would hurt the social housing stock. It would also be unfair to those in the private rented sector.

Hence, the more effective and fairer alternative is to evict (could have a 6 months notice period on full market rent).

Pixie5740

Wasn't there talk of doing away with social housing tenancies for life and introducing a fixed term (5 years I think) tenancy instead?

Edit:

This is it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property

Norman_Castle

martinsurrey wrote: »

Renting a house out that you own for £100 a month, with costs of £90 a month would "cover the budget", but if you could rent it out for £1,000 a month on the open market, you are subsidising the tenant to the tune of £900 per month.

Are you aware of any social housing providers that only charge 10% of market rent?

Miss_Samantha

TheGardener wrote: »

Then you fill all the empty houses with 'really poor' people - unemployed/elderly/single mums - then you have an unbalanced community where those working were paying full rent and keeping their gardens/doing their own repairs and improvements are moved on and the housing repairs and benefit bill goes up. Moving out those who are earning decent money simply take us back to the days of 1970's sink estates.

The point of social housing is to help those in need.

You are rather narrow-minded in your view. It is not required to stuck every one into a ghetto. You also have a rather negative view of the poor by implying that they would just not care for anything.

TheGardener wrote: »

The real answer is more social housing.

This is another issue.

Whatever the stock of social housing, it is there for a reason. And that reason isn't to provide subsidised or secure housing to those you can afford the private sector.

Concerned75

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

What do you think a percentage of your council tax pays for? Whether you're on £7.50 or £70.50 ph . Makes no difference. We all pay.

FBaby

Guest101 wrote: »

Well that's household income, so would be the same - ie paying full rent, or even over market rent. Again evicting those people wouldn't help if they then broke up?

Indeed they should, but they don't currently. I expect if rent did go up, there wouldn't be such a desire to remain anyway so eviction won't be so much a requirement.

They stay in their council house because it is cheaper. If they separate? Well no different to any other couple separating. You can't allow an unjustified policy on the basis of 'what might happen' when the risk is no different to anyone else.

Pixie5740

If there was no difference in price I would still choose to remain in a council house with a secure tenancy.

FBaby

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If there was no difference in price I would still choose to remain in a council house with a secure tenancy.

But potentially not in the area of your preferred choice.

AdrianC

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Are you aware of any social housing providers that only charge 10% of market rent?

My father pays a LOT less than 10% of market rent for his social housing.

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

But potentially not in the area of your preferred choice.

The same can happen renting privately in more desirable areas. Rents increase faster than salaries and before you know it you are priced out of the area. Every move taking money away from savings that could go towards retirement or a house deposit. Besides not all social housing is in an awful area.