Well off council tenants must pay market rent

[sgtkate]

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

 

But it doesn't. If you are out of work or on very low pay then you'd get housing benefit instead which rather than supporting the councils coffers would go directly to private landlord boosting his/her pension fund. Which would you rather have? People who can afford to pay rent do so to a private landlord leaving our taxes for people who really need it, people like you who could and should benefit from small business support, or shall we carry on making certain rich landlords already richer as they cream off the housing benefit. Your call.

[herbalharry]

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.

 

 

If you want to create swathes of de-motivated tennants and ultimately council ghettos...great idea.

[999tigger]

Do I agree with it? Not really because it's a bit rich treating social housing stock like some sor of invaluable commodity and then following policies which see it being sold off.

 

I can see the justification for it though.

 

Social housing tends to be cheaper and at point of greatest need it should go to those who really need it.

 

If the rents are artificially low and below market rates, then those who can afford to pay, should pay the market rate or move out into the private sector, thereby freeing up the housing stock.

 

Whats missing from herblharrys argument is the difference between someone earning £30k pa plus and someone on benefits of £ less than £4k +HB a year. As cyclone points out its hardly hoing to be a choice between staying on benefits or working. Cant see any reason why the above average earner in council housing should be paying below market rent when compared to those in the private sector.

[herbalharry]

But it doesn't. If you are out of work or on very low pay then you'd get housing benefit instead which rather than supporting the councils coffers would go directly to private landlord boosting his/her pension fund. Which would you rather have? People who can afford to pay rent do so to a private landlord leaving our taxes for people who really need it, people like you who could and should benefit from small business support, or shall we carry on making certain rich landlords already richer as they cream off the housing benefit. Your call.

 

This market rates business aswell? Who sets market rates? if those people in the new era estate had caved in to market rates it allows the rent to shoot up and up and up...no control. Social cleansing.

And you want to expose more people to market rates? Lol

[999tigger]

If you want to create swathes of de-motivated tennants and ultimately council ghettos...great idea.

 

Why is it going to de motivate people. If they become above average earners, then they cna afford to pay the real market rent.

 

If by crreating ghettos you mean council estates are going to be full of the low or average paid , elderly and unemployed, then thats always been the case and the intention. that's why they call it social housing.

[Eric Arthur]

It's called social housing for a reason. It was built to get people out of the private slums and council's were the ones chosen to do it by the governments of the day, not because councils had some duty to provide something. Those days are long gone, and with them the need for huge numbers of council owned homes.

 

There will always be a few people who need a safety net and for those the benefits system is rightly now in place, but even that doesn't really work because the people who need it can't get it when they need it because of the lack of money and property blocking by people who could find homes outside the social sector.

 

As somebody said above, the answer is that more houses need to be built.

[sgtkate]

This market rates business aswell? Who sets market rates? if those people in the new era estate had caved in to market rates it allows the rent to shoot up and up and up...no control. Social cleansing.

And you want to expose more people to market rates? Lol

 

Social cleansing? So you'd rather have government imposed social engineering instead then? Perhaps if we'd not sold off the council houses and had either built more or maintained the ones we had then there would be far less demand for them and we wouldn't be in this place.

 

You want to start a business don't you. Ok I can't afford to buy your stuff can I have it for free? I mean otherwise it would be social cleansing by refusing to let me have your product wouldn't it? I'm about as far left wing as you can get in general and even I think you are talking nonsense.

[999tigger]

This market rates business aswell? Who sets market rates? if those people in the new era estate had caved in to market rates it allows the rent to shoot up and up and up...no control. Social cleansing.

And you want to expose more people to market rates? Lol

 

Just the people who can afford it. There are already many more who live in the private rental sector and pay the market rate as well as those assisted with housing benefit.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:34 ----------

 

 

As somebody said above, the answer is that more houses need to be built.

@harry

Which is what everyone realises, but for the moment the pool of social housing is far smaller than demand. If the Councils dont have the funds to build more (government choice) then they have to use what stock they have to house the most needy.

 

You can still stay in your house, but you will need to pay the true rent.

[herbalharry]

Do I agree with it? Not really because it's a bit rich treating social housing stock like some sor of invaluable commodity and then following policies which see it being sold off.

 

I can see the justification for it though.

 

Social housing tends to be cheaper and at point of greatest need it should go to those who really need it.

 

If the rents are artificially low and below market rates, then those who can afford to pay, should pay the market rate or move out into the private sector, thereby freeing up the housing stock.

 

Whats missing from herblharrys argument is the difference between someone earning £30k pa plus and someone on benefits of £ less than £4k +HB a year. As cyclone points out its hardly hoing to be a choice between staying on benefits or working. Cant see any reason why the above average earner in council housing should be paying below market rent when compared to those in the private sector.

 

isnt council housing, council housing Until its sold to the private sector? one of my prime gripes is treating the same product if you like, differently for different groups of people. But expecting the higher group to subsidise the lower group!

 

if thats the case and the gov really want to free up housing. Why not say 'no council houses to those earning over 30k'??

 

And then everyone pays a little bit more tax...?

 

[sgtkate]

isnt council housing, council housing Until its sold to the private sector? one of my prime gripes is treating the same product if you like, differently for different groups of people. But expecting the higher group to subsidise the lower group!

 

if thats the case and the gov really want to free up housing. Why not say 'no council houses to those earning over 30k'??

 

And then everyone pays a little bit more tax...?

 

 

Fine by me. I'm happy to pay a bit more tax in return for a bit more support for those who need it.