herbalharry Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 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. Id rather have neither social cleansing nor government imposed social engineering. If you look at my other posts i agree and this is the main point....this is all because of a failure to build housing. Its just a sticking plaster, doesnt solve anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Id rather have neither social cleansing nor government imposed social engineering. If you look at my other posts i agree and this is the main point....this is all because of a failure to build housing. Its just a sticking plaster, doesnt solve anything. And on that point I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalharry Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Fine by me. I'm happy to pay a bit more tax in return for a bit more support for those who need it. Cool...its fairer that everybody subsidises council houses. Thats my point. average and above average workers being targeted for double tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 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...? Previously nobody bothered and overlooked the difference, but the government has decided it is no longer acceptable. The reasoning is that those who cna afford to pay should either pay market rate or they should leave social housing, which is the real aim. They should leave becayse they can afford private housing. Thats the difference between tenants. The key is at what level you set this income criteria and how much difference the council rent is v market rent. The answer is to build more houses, but as that will not happen and as the social housing stick continues to be sold off, then you are faced with increasing deamnd for ever fewer houses. It is a sticking plaster and wont make much difference, but its politics the bedroom tax was along the same lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalharry Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 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 ---------- @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. The free market is a mess...i wouldnt trust it to run a bath. Look at how private housing rates have outstripped salaries for proof. No such thing as a true rent. I just think this scheme disencentivises both ways and is more political than practical. Its a cover up for not building houses...it a tailor made excuse for government to consistently under deliver because they now have a scapegoat who will make up the shortfall In their budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The free market is a mess...i wouldnt trust it to run a bath. Look at how private housing rates have outstripped salaries for proof. No such thing as a true rent. I just think this scheme disencentivises both ways and is more political than practical. Its a cover up for not building houses...it a tailor made excuse for government to consistently under deliver because they now have a scapegoat who will make up the shortfall In their budgets. ofc theres such a thing as a true rent its where demand meets supply. Cant see why it disincentivises or at least the people who are above average earners arent meant to be in social housing. Is it political? yes Is it meant to deflect from lack of house building? yes Are these people being scapegoated? kind of. Will it make the slightest bit of difference to budgets? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Waverley, Stockbridge, the Lower Don Valley, there are plenty of brownfield sites still about, many of which already have some kind of planning permission, but surprise surprise no houses. Thats not what I am talking about. My comments are about greenfield sites without permission. This is where the NIMBY'S an over proportion of influence. Brownfield sites are a different issue and just because they have not being developed to your observation, doesn't mean nothing is happening. Edited February 10, 2016 by Berberis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thats not what I am talking about. My comments are about greenfield sites without permission. This is where the NIMBY'S an over proportion of influence. Brownfield sites are a different issue and just because they have not being developed to your observation, doesn't mean nothing is happening. I found out the other day that Surrey has more acres of golf course than it does of housing. So whilst protecting the countryside is of course important, it can't be put above housing needs or our population. Again, compromise is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If they are 'well off' why are they living in social housing I ask? Council owned social housing should have the occupants tenancy re evaluated every three years and if you are considered to be 'well off' enough to buy private, move out and the council owned property should then be re let to someone who is in genuine need of it. The idea of building them, selling them off to the private sector is madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalharry Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 ofc theres such a thing as a true rent its where demand meets supply. And not enough houses are being built. so are market rents just going to keep going up and up above rate of salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now