Well off council tenants must pay market rent

[herbalharry]

A few months ago I was a single parent living in a 2 bedroom council house, I am now a single person living in a 2 bedroom council house.

The council do not even house single people; they will be making me pay more next.

 

The vast majority of council homes were built decades ago, and the cost of building them has long since been recouped many times over by tenants paying rent to the council. There is no ‘subsidy’ – far from it, council housing is in fact a public asset that brings in more money for councils in rent than it costs in management and maintenance.

 

Until last year the government was also taking a slice of the surplus cash – £200 million a year.

 

The council dont do jack for white single men Under the age of 45..we are not a priority. Despite paying more tax than almost any other group. Generally also you are the one who gets kids taken off you and then cant get a council home. There is no safety net.

 

Men in this group are treated like dirt in this society. But thats another thread lol

[Cyclone]

And priority system exists already. Everybody needs housing. Even 'rich' people on 30k upwards lol Im not sure what your point is?

They don't need SOCIAL housing though.

I don't know anyone that has a council house or flat. I know lots of people who own and a few who rent.

Hardly anyone has a secure job.

Don't be daft.

Earnings rollercoaster and the private rental market is both precarious & inflated. Council housing worked when there was enough coucil houses so it does work in principle...you could turn it another way and ask why should I pay a premium just because I happen to have a professional job? Why should an unemployed person have more rights to housing than me?

I answered this already. Firstly, it's not a premium, it's the market rate, secondly, because council housing is supposed to be for those who need it, if you have a well paid professional job, then you aren't in that category.

 

Here is a novel idea. Build more and stop selling off council houses into private market.

That solves your problem.

It doesn't. Not unless you build an unaffordably large number.

[herbalharry]

How could the country afford to build enough housing for everyone to be able to have social housing (and why would we want to)?

 

Ive been on waiting list for 9.5 years. Why would I not want affordable housing?

Why are my rights lower than other groups?

Why should i pay more for people who dont bother to work?

 

????

 

It shouldnt be two tiered!

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 09:44 ----------

 

They don't need SOCIAL housing though.

I don't know anyone that has a council house or flat. I know lots of people who own and a few who rent.

Don't be daft.

I answered this already. Firstly, it's not a premium, it's the market rate, secondly, because council housing is supposed to be for those who need it, if you have a well paid professional job, then you aren't in that category.

It doesn't. Not unless you build an unaffordably large number.

 

A lot of people need affordable housing. It shouldnt be made a two tiered system. Fine make the homeless, single mums, unemployed etc first in line.

 

I was happy or at least accepted that i would come back of the queue...now you are telling me I should pay more?

 

No chance!

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 09:48 ----------

 

I will use new park hill flats as an example.

council rate is 400

Private rate is 600

 

under the new system for the same property you would be paying 2400 more than your unemployed layabout neighbour.

thats just not fair...it should be affordable housing block for all Or not at all.

[Cyclone]

You clearly do WANT affordable housing. I'm sure everybody does.

It's not WANT that we're talking about though, it's NEED. We have a limited supply, so it should be targeted at those who need it the most. If someone who has a good income chooses to stay in social housing then they shouldn't be getting it at a subsidised price.

 

I'm not telling you anything. I'm agreeing with the policy that those who earn a decent wage should pay the market rate.

 

Life isn't fair, whatever made you think it was? Do you think the unemployed neighbour thinks it's fair that the employed neighbour has a job and can afford nice things?

 

Why should it be for all, instead of for those who need it?

[herbalharry]

I answered this already. Firstly, it's not a premium, it's the market rate, secondly, because council housing is supposed to be for those who need it, if you have a well paid professional job, then you aren't in that category.

It doesn't. Not unless you build an unaffordably large number.

 

Firstly 30k isnt well paid. Its just an average ish salary.

Secondly if im paying 2400 more & subsidising my non working neighbour in the SAME property type in the same block its a PREMIUM.

 

Thats also not taking into account the coucil house premium is a total disencentive to get a job and pay taxes.

 

Its counter productive, a bit like the way raising the top level of tax works.

Edited February 10, 2016 by herbalharry
...

[sgtkate]

Ive been on waiting list for 9.5 years. Why would I not want affordable housing?

Why are my rights lower than other groups?

Why should i pay more for people who dont bother to work?

 

????

 

It shouldnt be two tiered!

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 09:44 ----------

 

 

A lot of people need affordable housing. It shouldnt be made a two tiered system. Fine make the homeless, single mums, unemployed etc first in line.

 

I was happy or at least accepted that i would come back of the queue...now you are telling me I should pay more?

 

No chance!

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 09:48 ----------

 

I will use new park hill flats as an example.

council rate is 400

Private rate is 600

 

under the new system for the same property you would be paying 2400 more than your unemployed layabout neighbour.

thats just not fair...it should be affordable housing block for all Or not at all.

 

I'd LOVE to have someone cover my mortgage for me too, but then another taxpayer has to pick up the bills. I'd rather we used taxpayers money to help people out who NEED it, long or short term, and people who earn above a certain level should not qualify to move into a council house, and if they are currently living there should have rents increased to market levels to encourage them to move out into private rental if appropriate to do so. The only thing I differ with the government on is the point at which people are classed as earning too much to get rent assistance. Especially in London, £40k per household is far too low in my opinion, anything that includes large numbers of nurses and teacher is too low a cap.

[Eric Arthur]

Ive been on waiting list for 9.5 years. Why would I not want affordable housing?

Why are my rights lower than other groups?

Why should i pay more for people who dont bother to work?

Absolutely right, we'd all like a cheap house subsidised by someone else. At the end of the day a council house is heavily subsidised though.

 

Look at it simply, if council rents are half of market rents, a council would double its rental income if it charged market rent.

[herbalharry]

You clearly do WANT affordable housing. I'm sure everybody does.

It's not WANT that we're talking about though, it's NEED. We have a limited supply, so it should be targeted at those who need it the most. If someone who has a good income chooses to stay in social housing then they shouldn't be getting it at a subsidised price.

 

I'm not telling you anything. I'm agreeing with the policy that those who earn a decent wage should pay the market rate.

 

Life isn't fair, whatever made you think it was? Do you think the unemployed neighbour thinks it's fair that the employed neighbour has a job and can afford nice things?

 

Why should it be for all, instead of for those who need it?

 

Look at my example above...and the disecentive to work bit. We are never going to agree that average to above average paid workers should subsidise their non working neighbours...in effect a double tax.

 

If you want to be scruplously fair then why not say high earners should pay the shortfall? If thats the line of argument.

 

Be interested to see what other forumers have to say about the subject

[Cyclone]

Firstly 30k isnt well paid. Its just an average ish salary.

It's the principle I agree with, not necessarily the details.

But to be fair, 30k is above the national average, and nearly 50% higher than the Sheffield average.

Secondly if im paying 2400 more & subsidising my non working neighbour in the SAME property type in the same block its a PREMIUM.

You're not subsidising him, every tax payer is. You don't see us complaining about it.

Nobody subsidised me buying my house, I had to pay market rate for it... How's that fair?

 

Thats also not taking into account the coucil house premium is a total disencentive to get a job and pay taxes.

Because the extra £200 a month (from your example), means that you'd rather not be paid £2000 a month net...

 

Its counter productive, a bit like the way raising the top level of tax works.

 

It isn't though. You're not going to give up your job simply so that you can save a few hundred quid on a council flat.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

Look at my example above...and the disecentive to work bit. We are never going to agree that average to above average paid workers should subsidise their non working neighbours...in effect a double tax.

I'm not sure why you've decided they are subsidising them.

It's every taxpayer that is doing that, not their neighbours.

 

If you want to be scruplously fair then why not say high earners should pay the shortfall? If thats the line of argument.

They already pay more tax.

[herbalharry]

Absolutely right, we'd all like a cheap house subsidised by someone else. At the end of the day a council house is heavily subsidised though.

 

Look at it simply, if council rents are half of market rents, a council would double its rental income if it charged market rent.

 

So why should I subsidise my neighbour in a double tax situation? E.g. same block, same property type, i pay more tax on earnings (tax 1), i pay 2400 more per year in rent (tax 2).

 

And what incentivise then has the non working neighbour got to go out and find a tax paying job?

 

Its easy street in comparison!

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:19 ----------

 

It's the principle I agree with, not necessarily the details.

But to be fair, 30k is above the national average, and nearly 50% higher than the Sheffield average.

You're not subsidising him, every tax payer is. You don't see us complaining about it.

Nobody subsidised me buying my house, I had to pay market rate for it... How's that fair?

Because the extra £200 a month (from your example), means that you'd rather not be paid £2000 a month net...

 

It isn't though. You're not going to give up your job simply so that you can save a few hundred quid on a council flat.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

I'm not sure why you've decided they are subsidising them.

It's every taxpayer that is doing that, not their neighbours.

They already pay more tax.

 

Really we are discussing a 'shortfall'..a shortfall in houses, a shortfall in money in the kitty.

the gov are attempting to tax and tax again average earners to make up the shortfall.