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

[1066familyman]

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.

And I feel you are deliberately neglecting to answer the question I asked, just like the rest of the people who delight in bashing any kind of benefit claimant whilst conveniently forgetting into whose pockets huge amounts of those taxpayer payed for benefits are going in to.

With your track record I'm surprised you haven't jumped on my point about subsidising private landlords/landladies via housing benefit just like you do whenever working tax credits and subsidising big business is mentioned.

I actually answered the question by saying in principle I would agree with this policy if the proceeds went straight back into meeting social housing needs, but history has taught me to be extremely sceptical about that actually happening, and I know full well what this particular Governments agenda always is.

It's also a valid question as to what constitutes a 'fair market rent'. The current private sector rent market I feel is way out of hand because successive Governments have clearly failed a hell of a lot of people on housing whilst helping some do very nicely out of it indeed by the simple rule of supply and demand.

 

[Bry Nylon]

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.

Eh? Please read back what you have posted. Most of it doesn't make any sense.

 

[beorhthelm]

... 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.

people buying homes to rent might increase property prices, but the fact they are available to rent doesnt inflate rents. some might argue the property prices price people out of property and into rents... but as they would come from rental, and doesnt really change the population/property ratio, seems like a zero sum game. also, worrying about the owner nationality of >1m property really isnt going to change the market much, especially as such property would probably be through a holding company, so easily any avoid foreign ownership rule.

solution: build more. its frighteningly simple. London in particular has one of the lowest densities of building of any developed country, interestingly in contrast with some of the smallest sq footage of individual properties.

 

[Ernest]

Another ill thought through policy that will raise peanuts but cause misery to many especially the hard working people the Tories love

 

[beorhthelm]

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

unless there are councils charging local market rates, then they are subsidised rents. there's certainly a place for that, but there's no misconception.

 

[1066familyman]

Another ill thought through policy that will raise peanuts but cause misery to many especially the hard working people the Tories love

I think you'll find those are 'hard working FAMILIES'. Get it right!

Still, over 30k a year eh?. 'Aspirational' enough to be Labour voters you'd think. Wonder what the new leader will have to say about it

 

[yxee]

Another ill thought through policy that will raise peanuts but cause misery to many especially the hard working people the Tories love

Not as hard working as those who (a) pay rent all by themselves and (b) pay taxes, thereby subsidising those who don't.

 

[GT49er]

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.

If £165 is 65% of his weekly take home pay, he is earning nowhere near £30,000 per year, so this legislation will not affect him.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Another ill thought through policy that will raise peanuts but cause misery to many especially the hard working people the Tories love

And the odds on those over state retirement age being excluded from this? I'll be surprised if it's not a Bedroom Tax Mkll.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Another ill thought through policy that will raise peanuts but cause misery to many especially the hard working people the Tories love

Why should the state subsidise people on that level of pay? Actually, not the state, the taxpayer.

 

[janee]

unless there are councils charging local market rates, then they are subsidised rents. there's certainly a place for that, but there's no misconception.

But that isn't correct.

Council housing was mostly built in the 1930s and 1950s so loans are all paid off. It's like a collective mortgage. It was designed so that future rents would pay for management and maintenance and any profit to be used to build new housing.

It was designed to replace market rents because housing is a well know broken economic market. It's ok for mortgage payers to have decereasing payments?

 

[LamieRobertson]

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.

The conservative way to own ones house ...so those above 30k should pay a fair rent ..but if you want to buy you can have a nice discount......hmmmm

 

[janee]

Why should the state subsidise people on that level of pay? Actually, not the state, the taxpayer.

But there is no subsidy

 

[Hampster Gull]

But there is no subsidy

Whatever

Edit - unless its market rate its subsidised. simples

 

[Butch Willykins]

I'll be surprised if it's not a Bedroom Tax Mkll.

I think my grandad drove one of those.

 

[yxee]

But there is no subsidy

Can you explain this? You can't just say "there isn't a subsidy" when there clearly is.

 

[Butch Willykins]

Whatever

Edit - unless its market rate its subsidised. simples

Can you explain this? You can't just say "there isn't a subsidy" when there clearly is.

I think in boxing they call this move " Left, Right. Goodnight "

 

[Worthingite]

My suggestion is a simple one. Probably very flawed, but simple nevertheless. Allow BTL mortgages, but with a stringent caveat that the rental price on the property can never go beyond, say, 15% of the mortgage payment, but is adjustable to take interest rates within a 28 day period. That way people are still making money on their precious buy to let's, but will never overcharge the tenant in the property at any given time. It may put people off buying to let, but if you're in the market to be greedy, then your in the wrong game. As far as I'm concerned, that would stop rental prices consistently smashing records year in year out, and give people an opportunity to have affordable housing.

Oh and letting agencies - scrap the "admin charges" every 6 months. If you have a good, regular paying tenant, don't piss them off to the point where they up sticks because of your sheer minded greediness

 

[Worthingite]

Can you explain this? You can't just say "there isn't a subsidy" when there clearly is.

I can. Social housing costs are "true" market value. Privatised rent is inflated to make profit. I pay (in social housing) the same roughly for a 1 bed flat that someone with a mortgage would.

 

[janee]

Can you explain this? You can't just say "there isn't a subsidy" when there clearly is.

https://twitter.com/michaellondonsf/status/617623501244137472