Don – Yes, there is, but its set on a ‘local market’ basis – LHA in my area for a 3 bed is £208 per week – so the market pegs that as an artificial “base rate” – the landlord knows they can charge ‘at least’ that since the government is paying the bill, and even if people cannot afford it on their own wages, housing benefit props it up – under a free market, the rate is set by what people can afford, price it higher than that, and you cannot find a tenant…

if the LHA was £100 per week, then the ‘going rate’ would drop

Do you know what Fred – you and I are completely in agreement on this point

And lo, the New Year starts off on a positive and harmonious note. 😀

Which is just my point – why don’t we just say “no” – if there is going to be an input of taxpayers money, then the taxpayer should name the price- it should only be at the same rate as we charge council tenants, we’re artificially propping up the market by offering to pay whatever is asked for

Yeah, that way the rampant greedy acquisition of cheap properties wooduv bin stemmed considerably, and there’d be a lot more realistically affordable housing for those who really need it.

Instead, RTB became a cheap and easy way for people to make a quick buck, at the expense of the taxpayer. I agree in principle with RTB, but not with how it’s bin implemented. RTB gives people a sense of ownership, and increased social value in where they live, but only if it remains their ‘home’, rather than simply a cash cow.

RTB has helped aid social mobility, but at a very heavy price. With wealth must come responsibility, and this just hazzunt happened, sadly.

Not sure you can expect wealth to bring responsibility, but certainly governments should have been much stronger.

if the LHA was £100 per week, then the ‘going rate’ would drop

if the LHA were £100 per week, a huge chunk of the rental stock would be withdrawn from the market and reinvestment/maintenance would be withdrawn from a huge chunk of the rental stock. If you believe that the market fixes everything, then the state’s disengagement in this way would be a good thing. Otherwise…

a huge chunk of the rental stock would be withdrawn from the market

What are they going to do with it? leave it empty, making a loss forever – or sell it?

if they sell it, what will that do to house prices, all that stock coming onto the market overnight…

arse falls out the market, lots of cheap housing, problem solved 😀

Elfinsaftey – why do you write some of the words in your posts strangely; hazzunt, bin, wooduv etc? I’ve noticed it a few places now and just wondered if there is a back story?

Also what’s with ‘That there London’ I occasionally see?

Not a dig, just a genuine question.

if the LHA was £100 per week, then the ‘going rate’ would drop

I think there are two potential problems here, from what I see a lot of private landlords won’t accept housing benefit payments and secondly the private renters are driving the prices.

Elfinsaftey – why do you write some of the words in your posts strangely; hazzunt, bin, wooduv etc? I’ve noticed it a few places now and just wondered if there is a back story?

Yeah he comes across quite well to-do but uses text-speak or whatever it is?

Elfinsafety – Member
It’s a very complex issue, and as such, many on here simply aren’t qualified to comment on it.

Not at all, it simply boils down to this:

Then there’s the moral argument of people inhabiting housing at low rents, when they can clearly afford to rent or buy privately, meaning that other more ‘deserving’ people are left without housing/have to rent from private landlords costing the nation even more money etc..

and this is irrelevant:

Seriously though; as mentioned, someone earning over a hundred thousand pounds a year is paying a lot of tax on their earnings, which in turn is helping to ‘subsidise’ their own housing, surely? IE, people earning less aren’t ‘subsidising’ their housing as much as they are themselves?

They are still getting cheap housing compared to the rest of us, and don’t warrant/justify/deserve it.

They are still getting cheap housing compared to the rest of us, and don’t warrant/justify/deserve it.

Hmm. Thing is though right, and the reason I say it’s a ‘complex issue’, is that it’s about people’s homes, as much as it is about people’s houses.

So. Someone is hard up, gets a council flat. Works hard, gets themselves to a position where they are earning proper good money. Pays the rent demanded of them in full.

Why should they be turfed out of their home, just cos they earn decent money?

The angry militant Leftie in me says ‘yeah turf them out on the street rich scum’, but then the nice caring considerate inner Elf says’ but that’s somewhere they’ve made their home; they may have developed a very happy social life in that area, have family nearby and generally be a positive and valuable member of the local community’.

Granted, they may well be occupying a house that someone a lot less wealthy could benefit from, but should they really be penalised for being a high earner?

No I’ve had a think about this, and it’s really not as easy as it looks.

Ewan, it’s called “attention seeking”.

Granted, they may well be occupying a house that someone a lot less wealthy could benefit from, but should they really be penalised for being a high earner?

Penalised? What being told that as they can afford a non-council place they should get one in order for someone else to benefit from the council house? Pretty black and white for me.

So. Someone is hard up, gets a council flat. Works hard, gets themselves to a position where they are earning proper good money. Pays the rent demanded of them in full.

Why not have banding like tax?
If you’re on benefit, all costs are covered.
Low income, some costs are covered.
Higher incomes and the rental price increases so that those on 100k salaries pay market rates.
People don’t get turfed out of their homes and the councils potentially earn more.

Just to question the angry militant leftie in you…

yeah turf them out on the street rich scum

Is anyone earning 100k a year rich scum then? Surely nowadays the larger proportion of them are just people who’ve worked hard to get it?

Ewan, it’s called “attention seeking”.

Assumed it was an in joke or something.

we work in a LOT of coumcil and housing association properties.. probably in the refion of 30000 in and around manchester i maight visit 12 a day max 1 a day min. for the last 6 yrs thats a lot of homes..

i think i can state fairly clearly that not one of the tenants earns 100k a year if rankly would expect any of the homes ive worked in to have a combined household income of anywhere near 100k

what i have seen and had proven is a large number of homes have social security incomes circa 60k per year

equallu in all that time i have only come across one property where it was ‘sublet ‘ to ‘an other’

No, Ewan, sadly not. Jokes are funny.

CFH & Ewan, it’s called “winding up folk that take things a bit seriously.” get over it!

Elfinsafety – Member

Hmm. Thing is though right, and the reason I say it’s a ‘complex issue’, is that it’s about people’s homes, as much as it is about people’s houses.

So. Someone is hard up, gets a council flat. Works hard, gets themselves to a position where they are earning proper good money. Pays the rent demanded of them in full.

Why should they be turfed out of their home, just cos they earn decent money?

The angry militant Leftie in me says ‘yeah turf them out on the street rich scum’, but then the nice caring considerate inner Elf says’ but that’s somewhere they’ve made their home; they may have developed a very happy social life in that area, have family nearby and generally be a positive and valuable member of the local community’.

Granted, they may well be occupying a house that someone a lot less wealthy could benefit from, but should they really be penalised for being a high earner?

No I’ve had a think about this, and it’s really not as easy as it looks.

In your mind, perhaps not.

For me, social housing is (or at least should be, IMO) for the disadvantaged. Once someone is earning £100K or even £45K (~ the 40% tax threshold) they are a long way from that and there are many people (families, single parented ones and evberything) in shitty bedsits etc waiting to move up the ladder. The latter should be getting the social housing and the rich guy in the Cooncil hoose has IMO a duty to fend for himself and stop sponging.

Moving house is no biggie, especially if you have that kind of cash..

The news story that was linked to seems to ignore the impact of the localism bill and the powers that local authorities have been granted.
See the story below for a more accurate picture of the current situation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-16245269

Local authority rents are going up and many more people within local authority houses will have to pay more rent. This could be bad for some but for too long some local authority tenants have benefited from subsidised rents at the expense of the taxpayer.

Of course, you don’t have to let information get in the way of a good old rant about local authorities and the people who live in their houses 🙂

For me, social housing is (or at least should be, IMO) for the disadvantaged. Once someone is earning £100K or even £45K (~ the 40% tax threshold) they are a long way from that and there are many people (families, single parented ones and evberything) in shitty bedsits etc waiting to move up the ladder. The latter should be getting the social housing and the rich guy in the Cooncil hoose has IMO a duty to fend for himself and stop sponging.

Moving house is no biggie, especially if you have that kind of cash..

so being dislocated from your freinds/family/community should be enforced once you reach a certain income threshold ? the only reason i can see that people would want to live in social housing once they have the means to afford something else is because that’s where they feel they belong.

don’t see a problem myself beyond the fact that there isn’t enough social housing full stop and that’s not the fault of a small number of wealthy people living there.

what i have seen and had proven is a large number of homes have social security incomes circa 60k per year

**** me I’m in the wrong business…

Anyway for me social housing should be for the socially disadvantaged and not for people earning big bucks, obviously a few checks and balances would need to be in place to make sure people arent just booted out. If you think differently to this you obviously have a very different view of what social housing should be.

Trailmonkey rases an excellent point though a_a – do we want council estates to become ghettoes of poor people?

One of the initial reasons they didn’t go down that line, and that council houses were open for everyone to apply for was to ensure that, as much as possible, they reflected the wider local community – and as such allocation was on a basis of need – eg, family with kids needs a 3 bed house, gets priority over family with no kids, regardless of earnings.

I think a lot of that has been lost with the “points” system, due to the way points have been allocated for many years now.

what i have seen and had proven is a large number of homes have social security incomes circa 60k per year

tax free income of £60K p.a. is probably higher take home than £100k p.a earnt

trailmonkey – Member
so being dislocated from your freinds/family/community should be enforced once you reach a certain income threshold ?

I don’t see how that would follow from moving to a private landlord or buying?

This story is just another sideshow to distract from the real issues and seems to be working judging by the wall to wall media coverage (Good PR from Tory HQ)and some of the post on here-bashing high earners and benefit scroungers! Divide and conquer.
The real issues in the UK housing market-mainly all Tory caused but not all- ,lack of investment in social housing with money from rent being diveretd elsewhere ,half a million + empty properties,the fiasco of RTB ,MIRAS anyone remember that,the high price and limited amount of land available
According to the news there are 6,000 people earning over 100K in council houses but not sure I believe this or how they got these figures.And if, as some on here suggest, kicking high earners out of council houses why stop there? What about people with savings,people living in low priced private homes “bed blocking” first time buyers etc-Stalinesque social planning…..

Trailmonkey rases an excellent point though a_a – do we want council estates to become ghettoes of poor people?

Thats a question of how we organise the social housing spatially is it not?

Rent control is a terrible idea in theory and in practice. Have a read up on what happened in NYC in the late 70s/early 80s when private sector rents weren’t allowed to rise in order to cover maintenance of the buildings. The current system is plagued by scams e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/faye-dunaway-evicted-from-manhattan-flat-20110805-1ie98.html
And WTF does a “level playing field” mean anyway?

Bit late coming back on this, Councils actually maintain houses there are minimum build standards etc, there are no rules about private housing. So not only am i subsidising the mortgage of my landlord and in doing so pricing myself out of the market, i am subsidising those living in better built and maintained accommodation in the social sector. If i am asked to move tough, from personal knowledge i have met a few council tenants who have received grants to cover redecorating and moving costs.

As for private rents rising to cover maintenance costs, haven’t seen it personally, maintenance that is.

And as for lower social housing rents they are and have been for some time been increasing to meet the price of private rents in the area using a price escalator.A Labour intiative I think. This will eventually lead to a bizarre situation where low earners can’t afford the rent of council homes in decent areas unless they qualify for Housing Benefit-which incidentally is administered by local government but central government pays the money to the relevant LA.

my biggest local housing provider ‘pays’ £5k plus 300 redecoration grant to tenants to move to more suitable properties than the one they presently occupy

The real issues in the UK housing market-mainly all Tory caused

Rubbish, one of the most serious issues is the affordability of housing which is pretty much down to Gorden not controlling the rampant market excess of the noughties in terms of mortage lending.

The market is always supply and demand controlled, not by the housing stock available but by the credit available. Basically you still have the same people buying the same sort of property but due to the idiocies of the boom years they now pay way more for that same property.

Admittedly Thatcher did screw up the social housing sector by allowing council houses to be sold (which in itself is probably a good thing) at massively subsidised rates and then refusing to allow councils to use the money to build more social housing. This however pales into insignificance compared to the disaster Gorden presided over which will take decades to resolve.

The market is always supply and demand controlled

yep

one of the most serious issues is the affordability of housing which is pretty much down to Gorden not controlling the rampant market excess of the noughties in terms of mortage lending

yep, but…
you also need to add the lack of restrictions on entry to nationals of the newer eastern european countries, you have to house that 1million + of migration to the UK hence a demand problem as well

etc etc

Stalinesque social planning…..

that would have been Gordon Brown, there is nothing wrong with suggesting to households with a >£100k p.a. income that they no longer need to live in publicly funded social housing in order to ensure its availability for those who is was built for. Frank Dobson and the half a dozen union leaders on £100k p.a. are a classic example of how the system gets abused.

Elfinsafety – Member

So. Someone is hard up, gets a council flat. Works hard, gets themselves to a position where they are earning proper good money. Pays the rent demanded of them in full.

Why should they be turfed out of their home, just cos they earn decent money?

Because they were offered aid and took it, and are now denying that same aid to someone else who is in the same position they once were.

Haven’t read the whole thread, but heard the news story, surely if you’re earning 100k plus, or even 50k youve elevated yourself to a position in life where you no longer need subsidised housing? I thought you either purchase the house or it’s then passed down the line to the next people who are waiting for housing? Doesn’t seem very fair, especially if these people are then letting the house out!

Good luck to anyone who earns good money, but remaining to live in subsidised housing is no different to claiming benefits you’re not entitled to. The rules clearly need an overhaul, and making profit from subletting is fraud.

On the subject of fairness, why should high earners in council houses have more disposable income than others who pay their way in the world?

The problem is some people see a coucil house as their god given right, regardless of wages, and forget what subsidised council housing was intended for.

Because they were offered aid and took it, and are now denying that same aid to someone else who is in the same position they once were.

This.

One of Thatchers better ideas was the Right To Buy scheme. The major flaw in it was that money raised was not ring fenced to build more social housing. If it had been then there would be less of a shortage of housing stock now.
The idea behind RTB was to give the pride of ownership to lower income families and actually improve those “sink” estates. Think of it like this. You rent a bike for 30 quid a day and you don’t give a toss about it. You buy a bike and you can’t stop polishing it. The pride of ownership is a good thing.
Before any one jumps on their high horse, yes there are millions of tenants that do care about their properties. Especially those earning more than a 100k and sub letting their council pad in Pimlico!

Ewan, it’s called “attention seeking”.

It’s true. I freely admit it. 🙂

And of course creating a grossly exaggerated persona which is a projection of what someone desires to be, is not attention seeking, oh no…. 😉

Anyway…

Penalised? What being told that as they can afford a non-council place they should get one in order for someone else to benefit from the council house? Pretty black and white for me.

Thing is though, what any £100k+ earners who actually do live in council housing (and I don’t imagine there are all that many of them tbh..) are doing is perfectly legal, regardless of any ‘moral’ argument. So, perhaps they are exploiting weaknesses in a system, but they themselves aren’t actually doing anything wrong, certainly not from a legal perspective. A bit like someone trying stuff on in a shop then buying it cheaper online.

As someone who grew up in social housing, mainly, I do think that those with enough wealth to afford their own homes should consider the needs of others, yes. But I also strongly believe that a person should be free to live where they choose, regardless of wealth. Everybody has a right to a home, and if they’ve spent time and effort making their house their home, and becoming a valued member of the local community, who the hell has the right to move them elsewhere?

For me, social housing is (or at least should be, IMO) for the disadvantaged. Once someone is earning £100K or even £45K (~ the 40% tax threshold) they are a long way from that and there are many people (families, single parented ones and evberything) in shitty bedsits etc waiting to move up the ladder. The latter should be getting the social housing and the rich guy in the Cooncil hoose has IMO a duty to fend for himself and stop sponging.

The issue (if indeed it is actually an ‘issue’ rather than a few isolated atypical cases) is to find a solution which works out for everyone, especially the person whose home it is. Simply turfing people out or demanding that they move is not a decent and fair solution.

Why not have banding like tax?
If you’re on benefit, all costs are covered.
Low income, some costs are covered.
Higher incomes and the rental price increases so that those on 100k salaries pay market rates.
People don’t get turfed out of their homes and the councils potentially earn more.

This is actually at least an idea that could work, and not see the fracturing of communities and disruption to someone’s personal life. And you could extend that to say ‘if you start to earn above X amount, then you can start to pay into a ‘mortgage’ type scheme where eventually you might own your own home outright, or have amassed sufficient credits to be offset against a mortgage on a private property’. Why not? Should ideas like this not at least be considered? Surely such a scheme could also encourage people to ‘better’ themselves (hate that term but it’ll do for now).

I think the whole ‘social’ housing situation needs to be looked at carefully, and not just by a bunch of disconnected politicians in Westminster.

what i have seen and had proven is a large number of homes have social security incomes circa 60k per year

Really? A ‘large number of homes’?

I’d really like to see some genuine figures to support that claim…

Is anyone earning 100k a year rich scum then?

Deliberately provocative language designed to get attention… 😉 (I don’t really think all people with money are ‘scum’, just for the record like. I’ve got quite a few friends and even some relatives who are high earners, and they’re not ‘scum’)

You also need to add the lack of restrictions on entry to nationals of the newer eastern european countries, you have to house that 1million + of migration to the UK hence a demand problem as well

Here we go. Blame the ‘immigrants’. Ignore the enormous contribution they’ve made to the UK economy…

Anyway they’re all going back home now. Net migration to the UK is dropping quite rapidly. At this rate we’ll be seeing net emigration, not immigration in just a few years.

he issue (if indeed it is actually an ‘issue’ rather than a few isolated atypical cases) is to find a solution which works out for everyone, especially the person whose home it is. Simply turfing people out or demanding that they move is not a decent and fair solution.

And the Tories are in full agreement with you 😉
The policy quoted in the original article was not to boot them out, but to ask them to pay current market rate for rent in the area, and only to boot them out if they refused to do so.

What’s with the idiotic cowardly tags (again.. 🙄 )?

Why not actually try discussing things in a respectful manner with me?

Or do you not actually have that ability? 😕