Well off council tenants must pay market rent

[999tigger]

A couple of years ago, I moved from a 2 bed terraced house costing me £70 per week, to a 2 bed council town house costing £72 per week. The council house does have a small garden, but I have been told that council houses are not subsidised, just good value.

Council housing has a separate budget to councils, I believe.

 

The if there is no difference in rent between the private sector and council rents, then rent rises will mean council rents become higher than the private sector and they should move. Subsidy is the wrong word. One persons good value is anothers artificially low.

[poppet2]

I plowed my way through the Hackney benefit calculator (http://www.hackney.gov.uk/benefits-calculator.htm) using your figures.

 

Couple, no children, no other benefits, household income of £40k, 20% tax, 5% NI, no pension.

 

It happily told me I would not be entitled to any housing benefit or indeed council tax benefit, and I'd be responsible for paying my own rent of £400pw.

 

So I'm not sure where you are getting your assumption that a couple with a household income of £40k will get housing benefit from in London.

 

I said they had a family, so include 3 or 4 children, hence the 4 bedroom house.

Also both parents are working part-time with gross salary £20k EACH, and both working 16 hours a week only.

[the_bloke]

I said they had a family, so include 3 or 4 children, hence the 4 bedroom house.

Also both parents are working part-time with gross salary £20k EACH, and both working 16 hours a week only.

 

You said nothing about a family (feel free to quote where you did) and now you are coming up with vague ideas of earning £20k pa at 16 hours a week (that equals £24 ph, far beyond NMW or even the national average). You are moving the goalposts and creating scenarios that don't exist to try to support your original claim.

 

Seeing as you want to change the requirements, I'll let you plug your own figures into that Hackney benefit calculator.

 

Edit; ah back in post #5 you mentioned family, so I apologise. Your idea of earning 20k on part time wages is silly though.

Edited February 8, 2016 by the_bloke

[I1L2T3]

Yet more complexity in the welfare system......

 

As others are pointing out the risk is that the incentives may be counter-productive.

[999tigger]

Yet more complexity in the welfare system......

 

As others are pointing out the risk is that the incentives may be counter-productive.

 

And if they get it right then it would ensure people in social housing pay a fair market rent and possibly free up some council housing for more needy people.

[I1L2T3]

And if they get it right then it would ensure people in social housing pay a fair market rent and possibly free up some council housing for more needy people.

 

The Tories are doing everything they can to dismantle social housing provision.

[poppet2]

You said nothing about a family (feel free to quote where you did) and now you are coming up with vague ideas of earning £20k pa at 16 hours a week (that equals £24 ph, far beyond NMW or even the national average). You are moving the goalposts and creating scenarios that don't exist to try to support your original claim.

 

Seeing as you want to change the requirements, I'll let you plug your own figures into that Hackney benefit calculator.

 

Edit; ah back in post #5 you mentioned family, so I apologise. Your idea of earning 20k on part time wages is silly though.

 

It's not silly especially if you are:

a. self employed

b. One of the m/c on Mumsnet. They do it all the time to qualify for benefits. You are obviously not tuned into what happens down south. Others on this forum have pointed this out re. Mumsnet, many times and how they manipulate the system re. the 16 hour rule that allows you a plethora of benefits at the cut-off rule of 16 hours re. How much a household can earn if both work the 16 hour rule AND still qualify for benefits. It is not me changing the goal post it is the government and the 16 hour rule that allows you to earn more at the cut-off magic number of 16 hours and qualify for other benefits.

[the_bloke]

It's not silly especially if you are:

a. self employed

b. One of the m/c on Mumsnet. They do it all the time to qualify for benefits. You are obviously not tuned into what happens down south. Others on this forum have pointed this out re. Mumsnet, many times and how they manipulate the system re. the 16 hour rule that allows you a plethora of benefits at the cut-off rule of 16 hours re. How much a household can earn if both work the 16 hour rule AND still qualify for benefits. It is not me changing the goal post it is the government and the 16 hour rule that allows you to earn more at the cut-off magic number of 16 hours and qualify for other benefits.

 

So now you are suggesting that people should be committing fraud if by either massaging their income figures when self employed, or by somehow managing to fiddle the system (and finding a mythical £24ph part time job), in order to gain housing benefit? This line of thought just cements my viewpoint that benefits for those in work shouldn't exist and the NMW should mean people don't need benefits at all.

 

To your original point though; you feel that if well off tenants are forced to pay market values for rent, then they'll rather fiddle the books/deliberately only work part time (fiddle the system) and move into private rent instead just so they can claim housing benefit?

[herbalharry]

Daft idea. Will prove to be counterproductive.

[Cyclone]

why is it principle sound?

 

why shouldn't council housing be available to anyone who wants it?

 

This isn't about making it unavailable. It's about charging a market rent to the people who can afford to pay market rent.

We simply don't have enough social housing for everyone, so it should be targeted at those actually in need, rather than just "anyone who wants". That's part of the problem with our society, people "who just want".