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

[Herr Tubthumper]

Strange - [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] isn't usually shy in coming forward. I can only assume he can't defend people on £40k+ having part of their rent effectively paid by the taxpayer.

I gave the thumbs down because I think the approach is wrong. I support lower rents, not higher. Germany seems to handle it well and when folk have a much lower percentage of their salary going on housing it means they spend it elsewhere across many sectors fuelling the economy.

This approach seems much more sensible.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I gave the thumbs down because I think the approach is wrong. I support lower rents, not higher. Germany seems to handle it well and when folk have a much lower percentage of their salary going on housing it means they spend it elsewhere across many sectors fuelling the economy.

The Greek economy, that is.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Greek economy, that is.

good point.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

good point.

About time they gave back the money they owe.

 

[beorhthelm]

So how does that work in practice?

it happens in practice due to massive differences in the amount of housing stock, inclination towards home ownership and other cultral differences. it not even real cap, is just capped annual increase.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

This explains rent control

German rent regulation is found in the Civil Code (the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) in §§ 535 to 580a, and particular rights for tenants on termination are in §§568 ff.[1] Rental price increases are required to follow a "rental mirror" (Mietspiegel), which is a database of local reference rents. This collects all rents for the past four years, and landlords may only increase prices on their property in line with rents in the same locality. "Usury" rents are prohibited altogether, so that any price rises above 20 per cent over three years are unlawful.[2] Tenants may be evicted against their will through a court procedure for a good reason, and in the normal case only with a minimum of three months' notice.[3] Tenants receive unlimited duration of their rental agreement unless the duration is explicitly halted. In practice, landlords have little incentive to change tenants as rental price increases beyond inflation are constrained. During the period of the tenancy, a person's tenancy may only be terminated for very good reasons. A system of rights for the rental property to be maintained by the landlord is designed to ensure quality of housing. Many states, such as Berlin, have a constitutional right to adequate housing, and require buildings to make dwelling spaces of a certain size and ceiling height.

Here's a link to Berlin rent cap law

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/rent-cap-legislation-in-force-berlin-germany

In addition there is also social housing which is pretty cheap.

This seems a more sensible approach to me. It also fuels the economy as Germans have more of their wages to spend on the high street.

Berlin has one of the lowest per-capita purchasing power for its inhabitants in all of Germany.

 

[portslade seagull]

People earning that much shouldn't even be in social housing...We have a 2 million waiting list in this country for social housing and something needs to give.

I know a fair few who are earning 30k plus, this will come as a bit of a shock but is entirely fair as is the ceiling on state hand outs where some get more for doing nothing than other poor sods who work all hours but get nowhere near that. Maybe it will stop the cycle of reliance

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I gave the thumbs down because I think the approach is wrong. I support lower rents, not higher. Germany seems to handle it well and when folk have a much lower percentage of their salary going on housing it means they spend it elsewhere across many sectors fuelling the economy.

This approach seems much more sensible.

I think many of us would agree that rents and house prices ( and thus mortgages ) should be lower but it hardly seems fair that someone on these types of salary get taxpayers money to help pay their rent regardless of the level of the rent. The assistance should be based on the level of income not the level of the rent.

 

[Ernest]

Yet again the Turkeys are voting for Christmas, there are some seriously THICK people about

 

[yxee]

I agree but I know of somebody with 3 children who was told he didnt qualify and is paying 65% of his take home pay in rent. (£165 per week). Surely that is not right.

Subsidising it is not the solution to a problem that can be summarised by: supply and demand.

 

[1066familyman]

I wonder how those supporting this idea on the basis that taxpayers money is currently subsidising these tenants also feel about taxpayers money subsidising buy to let landlords/ladies by way of the huge housing benefit bill because successive governments have failed millions of "hard working families" when it comes to Housing?

Is the current 'market rent' acceptable or is it time for rent caps in the private sector? Seems to me private rents are ridiculously high and leave many people no chance of escaping the rent trap that increases inequality as those already with property go on expanding their 'portfolio' whilst others can't even get on the first rung of the ladder. Houses should be for people to live in, not investment opportunities.

In principle, I can see the logic and fairness in this if the money really is ploughed back into building more social housing at fair rents for those unable to pay private rents without being topped up by housing benefit and not able to get social housing currently (the waiting list is huge and you have to be in crisis to have any chance of getting social housing).

Unfortunately, the last big council house sell off tells us that the money won't be ploughed back into addressing the chronic social housing shortage it created. A similar farce is likely to happen again with the new plans of forcing through more right to buy as well.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wonder how those supporting this idea on the basis that taxpayers money is currently subsidising these tenants also feel about taxpayers money subsidising buy to let landlords/ladies by way of the huge housing benefit bill because successive governments have failed millions of "hard working families" when it comes to Housing?

Is the current 'market rent' acceptable or is it time for rent caps in the private sector? Seems to me private rents are ridiculously high and leave many people no chance of escaping the rent trap that increases inequality as those already with property go on expanding their 'portfolio' whilst others can't even get on the first rung of the ladder. Houses should be for people to live in, not investment opportunities.

In principle, I can see the logic and fairness in this if the money really is ploughed back into building more social housing at fair rents for those unable to pay private rents without being topped up by housing benefit and not able to get social housing currently (the waiting list is huge and you have to be in crisis to have any chance of getting social housing).

Unfortunately, the last big council house sell off tells us that the money won't be ploughed back into addressing the chronic social housing shortage it created. A similar farce is likely to happen again with the new plans of forcing through more right to buy as well.

Good point. What is the true market rate for rent? There are so many government interventions and in-actions affecting the price does anyone actually know?

 

[beorhthelm]

I wonder how those supporting this idea on the basis that taxpayers money is currently subsidising these tenants also feel about taxpayers money subsidising buy to let landlords/ladies by way of the huge housing benefit bill because successive governments have failed millions of "hard working families" when it comes to Housing?

i feel like you are making an argument about another issue, to try and divert away from the principle of this policy. yes, governments have woefully left this country with insufficient housing stock, but then the public would prefer not to have anything developed within a mile of them.

 

[Beach Hut]

Whilst I agree on this there really needs to be a total re-think on the housing market as it is obscene, why have we created a system where people are buying a house basically to ensure they have a pension which is bound to inflate rents. Also foreign people purchasing houses over £1m should be taxed at 50% on the sale price, that would stop the stupidity of an inflated housing market.

By the way open to offers on the solution.......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Whilst I agree on this there really needs to be a total re-think on the housing market as it is obscene, why have we created a system where people are buying a house basically to ensure they have a pension which is bound to inflate rents. Also foreign people purchasing houses over £1m should be taxed at 50% on the sale price, that would stop the stupidity of an inflated housing market.

By the way open to offers on the solution.......

I totally agree. We have lost sight of what the primary purpose of a home is....which is a home.

 

[Beach Hut]

I totally agree. We have lost sight of what the primary purpose of a home is....which is a home.

It is a great hindsight this, I never thought for one minute when I bought a house all I was doing was a creating a huge profit just to give to my kids when I downsize so they can get on the housing ladder.

 

[Butch Willykins]

By the way open to offers on the solution.......

I know never a popular idea on here, but abolishing BTL mortgages would be my suggestion. Sadly I think the horse has already bolted on this one.

 

[sir albion]

There is such a shortage of social housing it's unreal and the councils are spending ridiculous amounts by paying landlords for places that are not suitable for certain people.
A house next door to me has single mothers both with young kids living in a one bedroom box and I'd bet my right bollock the council are paying at least £700 a month for each of those two tiny flats.

 

[janee]

I've worked in social housing for 25 years and the biggest misconception in society on here is that Council rents are subsidized.

Most Council mortgages were paid off years ago and it tends to pay for itself and has done since the 1980s. In fact many council rents subsidise council tax and lower those bills for the rest of us.

Seems hard to true rents for those with family incomes of those earning £30k suddenly
who in reality have paid rents all their lives and have paid for their homes several years over.

Lastly will force middle earners out or to buy (at taxpayers expense) leaving benefit ghettos which may cost tax payers more in the long term (social services, police etc) than leaving mixed communities (which are proved to bring households up).

Please don't knee jerk to these kind of policies unless you've really thought of every angle. Council housing was originally built for higher income working class in the late 19th century.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I've worked in social housing for 25 years and the biggest misconception in society on here is that Council rents are subsidized.

Most Council mortgages were paid off years ago and it tends to pay for itself and has done since the 1980s. In fact many council rents subsidise council tax and lower those bills for the rest of us.

Seems hard to true rents for those with family incomes of those earning £30k suddenly
who in reality have paid rents all their lives and have paid for their homes several years over.

Lastly will force middle earners out or to buy (at taxpayers expense) leaving benefit ghettos which may cost tax payers more in the long term (social services, police etc) than leaving mixed communities (which are proved to bring households up).

Please don't knee jerk to these kind of policies unless you've really thought of every angle. Council housing was originally built for higher income working class in the late 19th century.

Agree