Where will the evicted people go??

[HeadingNorth]

The very idea is lunacy of the first degree, are the people and the families of people caught up in this riot that happen to own their own homes going to get eviction and pay cuts thrust upon them too?

 

There is a profound difference between people rioting, and innocents caught up in the riot. Nobody is suggesting any punishment at all for the latter group.

[NorthernStar]

There is a profound difference between people rioting, and innocents caught up in the riot. Nobody is suggesting any punishment at all for the latter group.

 

Don't be so pedantic, you knew exactly what I meant.

[0742Sheff]

Imagine making what could be over 1000 families homeless. I don't think so.

[tinfoilhat]

How many roiters owned there own home. If it's more than 1% I'd be surprised. If the parents of the rioters was 10% I'd be surprised at that as well. If they can afford their own home of course that means they can pay a bigger fine.

[just_words]

Don't be so pedantic, you knew exactly what I meant.

 

But do you realise what your ranting?

[horribleblob]

I'm not sure the eviction thing is right but they need a short sharp shock. We put our collective arms round them and chucked loads of money at them, so maybe this is what they need.

 

Before everyone pushes the panic button, housing associations will take them in, and if it makes you feel better, we'll still foot the bill. They aren't the first people to get evicted from council housing, it happens but more often than not it takes years.

 

Ever since Cameron's speech about eviction, I've heard people interviewed on the radio say that council tenants aren't actually subsidised and, in fact, some of the money collected in rents is paid to the Treasury. Wanting to check this out I've had a limited google but could only come up with this:

http://www.arch-housing.org.uk/news/7.htm

 

The last paragraph is interesting:

"The redistributive ‘pool’ is in surplus, with council housing rent payers contributing through the overall surplus nearly £0.2billion to the Treasury. Councils and their tenants have no guarantee that this surplus will then be spent on housing and not health, education or another area. In effect council rent payers are paying an additional tax to Government and as the table below shows this surplus is expected to increase to £0.4billion in 20011/12, £0.7 billion in 2019/20 and £0.9 billion by 2022/23."

 

Also: "One officer commented: 'We collect £12m in rent and £4m goes straight to the Government.' "

[HeadingNorth]

Don't be so pedantic, you knew exactly what I meant.

 

Frankly no, I don't. Your post explicitly refers to people caught up in the riots, and yet now you appear to be claiming that you didn't mean that.

 

So what did you mean?

[HeadingNorth]

Ever since Cameron's speech about eviction, I've heard people interviewed on the radio say that council tenants aren't actually subsidised

 

 

That's a nonsense. Council rents are well below what a private rent for a similar property in a similar position would be; therefore, by definition, councils are taking in less money in rent than they could do. That is a subsidy.

[horribleblob]

That's a nonsense. Council rents are well below what a private rent for a similar property in a similar position would be; therefore, by definition, councils are taking in less money in rent than they could do. That is a subsidy.

 

So, if a private landlord decided to charge a profitable rent, but one lower than the market rate, that would amount to a subsidy?

[HeadingNorth]

So, if a private landlord decided to charge a profitable rent, but one lower than the market rate, that would amount to a subsidy?

 

Of course. He would be deliberately reducing his own income, which is identical to deliberately spending extra money.