Cyclone Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Ah, that's a good point. So if there are tenants who end up inheriting a council house in a nice area and earn that sort of money, they probably purchase them shortly afterwards and they're no longer council houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowersfade Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 that was my initial thought, closley followed by "if not, this guy is overpaid!":hihi: If Newboy erm i mean dadof2 earned £100K per year I'll give away my entire shoe collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 If Newboy erm i mean dadof2 earned £100K per year I'll give away my entire shoe collection. I'll bet that's worth a £100K, and would need a council house to store it in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Should Council house tenants have to leave their houses if they earn more than £100,000 p.a. in order that poorer people can be accommodated? What would that achieve? Besides, if they earned more than £100,000 wouldn't they just buy it anway? And isn't the "right to buy" the reason why there's a presumed housing shortage in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Is there currently talk within the government of making some changes regarding council housing and those that earn over £100,000pa If I heard correctly, those that earn over this figure will be asked to pay the market rate for their house rather than the council-subsidised rate. IMO that would be a fair way of doing it. Subsidised council housing is there because many cannot afford private rent rates. If you're earning 100,000+ then you can certainly afford those rates. Council homes are not subsidised and are for all people to apply for regardless of status or income. The market rate only applies to private properties for sale or rent. And a no to the OP's question. But, this has all been debated many times in the past on SF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Of course they're subsidised, the subsidy takes the form of not charging the full market rate and so bringing in less income for the council than it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Of course they're subsidised, the subsidy takes the form of not charging the full market rate and so bringing in less income for the council than it should. But they are not on the market. The rents are designed to be fair and affordable by all and are not designed to compete with the private market so no subsidy is given. A subsidy is an extra payment made to keep prices down, as was done with coal, steel and the car industry in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 they're let to people, that appears to be on the market to me. The fact that for social reasons they charge less than the market rate is in effect a subsidy. A subsidy can be explicit or impilict, this one is implicit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html I can't find the exact article that my previous post was based on, however the above is pretty damn close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 If Newboy erm i mean dadof2 earned £100K per year I'll give away my entire shoe collection. But you are a new boy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.