Social housing tenants earning over £30K will have to pay up to the market rent

[Herr Tubthumper]

Setting the haves against the have-nots. This is absolute text-book nasty party isn't it?

 

[Hampster Gull]

As always with Osborne, it's what happens when you make a wallpaper shop tea boy the Chancellor

I don't think you're an ARSonist, more like an ARSEonist

 

[Hampster Gull]

Setting the haves against the have-nots. This is absolute text-book nasty party isn't it?

It is appropriate in this case to take a few pounds off the middle classes (and hopefully a few houses) and giving to those who really are in need.

 

[Steve.S]

There are plenty of examples - I provided one the first page of this thread. A person I know with a family income over £60K per year and paying £138 pw rent living in a council house. There are people who need that council house far more than him. (He's off to New Zealand for 3 weeks this autumn so maybe he could let a family in temporary B&B accommodation borrow it for a bit whilst he's on holiday). Or the late Bob Crow - income of £145'000 but said he had 'no moral obligation' to move out of his council house. The system is broken all the while people hold this attitude.

Too many people feel 'entitled' - especially when other people are paying for their entitlement. Welfare should be a safety net - not a free ride.

You need to check your facts, people who earn over 60,000 should already be paying market rates in line with the private sector. Anyone can pluck out a few people to prove a point. What you need to do to provide fact based evidence, tell us how many people who live in Social housing are high earners.

 

[Dandyman]

it also answers your challenge to Bry Nylon, on page 4: "A small proportion (8%) of all social renters had a gross household income in excess of £700 a week". thats about 296,000 households in social housing with income over £36k. not alot if a couple to be fair, though more than an awful lot too (and pretty decent outside London).

so just to be clear, Dandyman would you rather the social housing goes to those with that income or those with say half that? (we'll assume that you'd prefer both to get social housing but right now that isnt an option).

This is a good summary of how housing is commonly allocated: file:///C:/Users/Andy/Downloads/rehousing_leaflet_final__2__NO_PRINT_MARKS.pdf


With a limited supply clearly it should go to those most in need but the question is based on a false premise. Both Labour and Conservative governments build thousands of council homes in the decases after 1945. Not only is it possible to do so again but to do so would make housing available to vastly more people, serve as a boost to employment and business, and decrease pressure on the private housing market currently reflected in exploitative rents.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Setting the haves against the have-nots. This is absolute text-book nasty party isn't it?

Why don't you go and visit a single mum with 3 kids living in a single room B&B accommodation and tell her that she can't have a council-provided family home because a software engineer pulling in £52K a year (plus his wife with her own clothes shop) need it more.

 

[alfredmizen]

1.2 million immigrants in social housing is also beyond a joke whilst there is a single British person on the list


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-given-social-housing-in-the-last-decade.html

 

[beorhthelm]

I rather like this: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-home-truths-about-housing/

Especially when compared with arrogant twaddle like this: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/social-housing-is-too-subsidised/

yes, nice to have the version that agrees with a misled view, rather than the version that arrogantly explains a matter with the numbers involved. i mean, who brings number into a matter of economics?

why not accept the economics, then argue why it might be justified to have social housing? you'll note that second article doesnt say you shouldnt, just explains that there is an economic subsidy in play.

 

[Dandyman]

it also answers your challenge to Bry Nylon, on page 4: "A small proportion (8%) of all social renters had a gross household income in excess of £700 a week". thats about 296,000 households in social housing with income over £36k. not alot if a couple to be fair, though more than an awful lot too (and pretty decent outside London).

so just to be clear, Dandyman would you rather the social housing goes to those with that income or those with say half that? (we'll assume that you'd prefer both to get social housing but right now that isnt an option).

This is a summary of current private rents in London http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html

£700 a week could easily go on rent and heating for a small family flat.

 

[Bry Nylon]

You need to check your facts, people who earn over 60,000 should already be paying market rates in line with the private sector. Anyone can pluck out a few people to prove a point. What you need to do to provide fact based evidence, tell us how many people who live in Social housing are high earners.

The answer was provided on the previous page. What you need to do is read the thread.

8% of all social renters had a gross household income in excess of £700 a week. That's about 296,000 households in social housing with income over £36k.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is a good summary of how housing is commonly allocated: file:///C:/Users/Andy/Downloads/rehousing_leaflet_final__2__NO_PRINT_MARKS.pdf


With a limited supply clearly it should go to those most in need but the question is based on a false premise. Both Labour and Conservative governments build thousands of council homes in the decases after 1945. Not only is it possible to do so again but to do so would make housing available to vastly more people, serve as a boost to employment and business, and decrease pressure on the private housing market currently reflected in exploitative rents.

afraid i cant access your local drive i'd rather your opinion of how the system is working in practice, not how some officials think it supposed to work. I agree completely on the solution you are proposing, as its clear to a blind man we need more housing built.

 

[1066familyman]

1.2 million immigrants in social housing is also beyond a joke whilst there is a single British person on the list


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-given-social-housing-in-the-last-decade.html

Oh do **** off Bushy. I bet the nearest you've been to this country's immigration system is watching an episode of some fly on the wall customs programme on Dave TV or something.

I'm on the sharp end of both our immigration system and our welfare system, whilst being in full-time work may I add, and it's not the party you and your reactionary mates are lead to believe.

 

[Hampster Gull]

A few people who really need housing support on C4 now, How to Get a Council House,

 

[Ernest]

I don't think you're an ARSonist, more like an ARSEonist

Ok bean brain, tell me what Osborne's economic qualifications are ? And not made up ones like Duncan Smith's either

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why don't you go and visit a single mum with 3 kids living in a single room B&B accommodation and tell her that she can't have a council-provided family home because a software engineer pulling in £52K a year (plus his wife with her own clothes shop) need it more.

Happy to visit her, but will tell her she can't have a council home because it was sold off. I'll also tell her it's unlikely she'll get housing trust as it's about to be sold off.

 

[Dandyman]

afraid i cant access your local drive i'd rather your opinion of how the system is working in practice, not how some officials think it supposed to work. I agree completely on the solution you are proposing, as its clear to a blind man we need more housing built.

The system can't cope with the demand but the system has been set up to fail. As you say we need more housing, we also need it to be affordable to the majority of people either in form of purchase or fair rents.

 

[Nibble]

Is the Queen going to move out then? What about Cameron. All live in council housing, all earn more than the threshold.

 

[Justice]

There are plenty of examples - I provided one the first page of this thread. A person I know with a family income over £60K per year and paying £138 pw rent living in a council house. There are people who need that council house far more than him. (He's off to New Zealand for 3 weeks this autumn so maybe he could let a family in temporary B&B accommodation borrow it for a bit whilst he's on holiday). Or the late Bob Crow - income of £145'000 but said he had 'no moral obligation' to move out of his council house. The system is broken all the while people hold this attitude.

Too many people feel 'entitled' - especially when other people are paying for their entitlement. Welfare should be a safety net - not a free ride.

Hello IDS

 

[alfredmizen]

Oh do **** off Bushy. I bet the nearest you've been to this country's immigration system is watching an episode of some fly on the wall customs programme on Dave TV or something.

I'm on the sharp end of both our immigration system and our welfare system, whilst being in full-time work may I add, and it's not the party you and you're reactionary mates are lead to believe.

**** off yourself you loser, sharp end my arse, for that i read ' you work in some crap job that alllows you to feel good about yourself while coasting along doing very little' there are 1.2 million plus foreign born people in social housing, including the asylum seeker from the congo who lived below me in london, who was so in fear of his life that he went back there 3 times a fvcking year.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Ok bean brain, tell me what Osborne's economic qualifications are ? And not made up ones like Duncan Smith's either