Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

'Middle Class' Bedroom Tax?

George Osborne will use Wednesday's Budget to announce a clampdown on "taxpayer-funded subsidies" for "higher earners" living in social housing. Local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London - will have to pay up to the market rent for their property.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650
«1345

Comments

  • This will penalise 'hard working families' on lowish incomes who live in social housing. The non working and the feckless in similar housing will still have their rent paid by the 'hard working taxpayer', including many taxpayers on low income .. perhaps the Osborne policy takes heed of this. The devil, as always, will be in the detail
  • shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Good question........
  • edited July 2015
    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.
  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    They should be asked to move on then so that someone with financial needs can be helped
  • edited July 2015
    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    and .. many thousands have 'inherited' a tenancy from their parents: .. yet more articles on this https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RVEB_enGB636GB637&q=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.24791...........0.82cnH5apQ6k&gws_rd=ssl


    AND is 30 to 40 k nowadays a terrific income ? .. taxes will take about a third, rent, children, petrol, fares, living expenses in general plus holidays and the like .. the Tories are giving with one hand on the inheritance tax reformation and are in danger of over penalising too many 'hard working families' through this new policy. I'm sure that at present, many working people paying high private sector rents get housing benefit
  • shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.

    They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    and .. many thousands have 'inherited' a tenancy from their parents: .. yet more articles on this https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RVEB_enGB636GB637&q=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.24791...........0.82cnH5apQ6k&gws_rd=ssl
    Tenancy succession can only happen once - usually to a child who is living in the property, but sometimes from husband to wife. It really does depend on the tenure of the property.

  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    Then there circumstances have changed, and like all people in social housing there position should be assessed every few years.
    I came from a background that my parents had a council letting for life, give or take a breach of there agreement.
    I would like to see that people working in the NHS, local councils, and the young, being giving an opportunity to be able to access this benefit.
    That does not mean that they have them for life,nor does it mean they are turfed out with out regard to there personnel circumstances when say there partner dies, but the demand and supply of these resources does have to be assessed from time to time. I do not have a particular issue with people buying council houses, but they should pay a decent market rate, and the money should be used by the council/housing association to rebuild/build new property.
  • Sponsored links:


  • shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    They should be asked to move on then so that someone with financial needs can be helped
    But they have a tenancy agreement.

    A legal contract.

  • Addickted said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    and .. many thousands have 'inherited' a tenancy from their parents: .. yet more articles on this https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RVEB_enGB636GB637&q=inheriting+a+social+council+housing+tenancy&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.24791...........0.82cnH5apQ6k&gws_rd=ssl
    Tenancy succession can only happen once - usually to a child who is living in the property, but sometimes from husband to wife. It really does depend on the tenure of the property.

    yes .. I read that as well .. ((:>)
  • Would you really want to 'inherit' this?

    image
  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    They should be asked to move on then so that someone with financial needs can be helped
    But they have a tenancy agreement.

    A legal contract.


    Which is usually 12 months no ?
  • edited July 2015

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    asked with changing and implementing new polici
    Then there circumstances have changed, and like all people in social housing there position should be assessed every few years.
    I came from a background that my parents had a council letting for life, give or take a breach of there agreement.
    I would like to see that people working in the NHS, local councils, and the young, being giving an opportunity to be able to access this benefit.
    That does not mean that they have them for life,nor does it mean they are turfed out with out regard to there personnel circumstances when say there partner dies, but the demand and supply of these resources does have to be assessed from time to time. I do not have a particular issue with people buying council houses, but they should pay a decent market rate, and the money should be used by the council/housing association to rebuild/build new property.
    a very noble idea .. BUT .. try and operate this in practice .. how can a tenant be evicted when his income suddenly reaches an arbitrary figure, causing disruption to his family, perhaps his children's education, necessitating a doubling of his rent .. and so on
    Your ideas are fine in practice but are the ideas of an outsider looking in and not, I am sure, the ideas of a realist tasked with the implementation of a new policy to allocate housing on a 'fair basis' .. the ONLY answer, as you write, is a huge investment in the housing stock both repairs and new build .. but don't hold your breath until this happens
  • Addickted said:

    Would you really want to 'inherit' this?

    image

    The sad thing is that these flats would be a massive improvement for many Londoners who have to pay huge rents for shared flea pits.

  • That is me Addickted, interesting that you call me an 'outsider', born in Charlton and lived in Springfields, went to Sherrington, then Bloomfield. Remind me who this 'locals are....
    When I went down to Peggy Middleton house ( Greenwich council) I had no realistic chance of any council housing,( point's score) and shall we say the council officers hardly seemed local?. Come to think of it neither did my brother or sister, or anyone else on the estate that I can remeember?. Okay that may have been mid 1970s, Personally speaking I wanted to move out to what I perceived to be a better area. And by the way I was working at Morgan Grampian at the time, in Woolwich. Anyway, someone involved with H&S surely has to re-asses situation's, or do you give them for life.? Situations do not change, or circumstances?......where were you born anyway, what council estate in Greenwich?
  • Addickted said:

    Would you really want to 'inherit' this?

    image

    As long as the building is maintained properly, those are half decent flats. Certainly better designed and built than much of the crap being thrown up quickly today
  • It's a great shame, IMO, that we have got a situation where social housing is seen to be only for "poor people", when socially segregated communities are a problem of themselves. Lifetime tenancies give people security, whereas those who are moved out when they are doing well in life may well find themselves unable to get back into social housing if their circumstances change again for the worse, especially if their children have left home.

    Regardless of that, there is a risk of creating disincentives with earnings thresholds.
  • Addickted said:

    Would you really want to 'inherit' this?

    image

    a little bit presumptive .. many thousands of people all over Britain and indeed the world over, live and enjoy life in such accommodation .. many others of course would not like to live in them too much, and I am sure that to you, such accommodation would be akin to living in a hen house .. different strokes for different folks
  • Sponsored links:


  • cabbles said:

    shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.

    They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
    Shine I'm glad you backed up this point with ref to your own individual circumstances and I can appreciate your frustration given what seems like a bit of a disparity here. However I truly believe the housing market is completely fucked and this is yet another example of the stupidity of it all.

    I can only cite my own personal circumstances. I rent in south east London. I see very little opportunity to get on the housing ladder in the not too distant future given the prices, even if I move a bit further out. This is because it will be a hard slog to save up for a deposit and 'live' at the same time. My earnings are such that I can't realistically save for a deposit but are probably too much to qualify for social housing. So essentially I'll crack on paying someone else's mortgage.

    I raise this point because I think there are many people in this situation and I understand that social housing is truly for those that need it, yet the way our country is growing in population and the costs of housing in certain areas, you could argue that those that might now qualify for social housing are on a higher income than before.

    Now I'm not saying it is right given your example and how much you earn, but we have a broken system that screws many people in many different ways.

    Now I know there are some on here that would put forward the argument that I and many other renters are lucky to have a roof over our head and we make too much of home ownership in this country. I agree that I am lucky to have a roof over my head as there are others that are far, far worse off. I would also agree that renting isn't such a big deal, was it not for private renting being cream cake country for Landlords and the levels tenants have to pay given the going rate. I mean I think I'm probably paying more in rent than some of my friends pay for their mortgage. It is what it is.

    I can see the arguments from many sides. I can see that if I were a private landlord with say one other property and I had a young family that it is their inheritance and investment for their children. The thing that makes my blood boil is things like hearing of new developments, like one my colleague went to see in the docklands (London City Island I think). She said that on the open day some guy bought five places. Great, does he really need that many? Is it fair that because he has the capital in place that he can take 5 places away from people that don't have one place yet and would like to take their first steps etc.

    I get that the government need to build and they have numerous schemes to try and get more supply into the market, but what's the point if someone can in one fell swoop take 5?

    The argument will run and run but my personal stance is that (although unlikely) the gvt needs to stamp out or restrict buy to let in this country. We don't have the luxury in terms of houses to allow it to continue. It won't happen of course because it is interfering in the free market I guess. These are all my basic thoughts so if I am incorrect factually here please let me know.

    Nail on the head re paying someone else's mortgage (and some). I probably will only be able to afford a deposit for a house when my parents pass away. The fact that they are in there mid 50's means I've probably got another 30/40 years of this situation. If I'm lucky I may find myself at some point in the next decade, in the position of buying a small plot of land and building a house from straw and cow shit, maybe try off the grid living. But again, you shouldn't have to think of those extremes to house yourself and loved ones.

  • shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    They should be asked to move on then so that someone with financial needs can be helped
    But they have a tenancy agreement.

    A legal contract.


    Which is usually 12 months no ?
    No.

    The majority of LA/HA tenancies are 'secure' and will be for life, as long as you don't break any of the terms of the agreement.


  • That is me Addickted, interesting that you call me an 'outsider', born in Charlton and lived in Springfields, went to Sherrington, then Bloomfield. Remind me who this 'locals are....
    When I went down to Peggy Middleton house ( Greenwich council) I had no realistic chance of any council housing,( point's score) and shall we say the council officers hardly seemed local?. Come to think of it neither did my brother or sister, or anyone else on the estate that I can remeember?. Okay that may have been mid 1970s, Personally speaking I wanted to move out to what I perceived to be a better area. And by the way I was working at Morgan Grampian at the time, in Woolwich. Anyway, someone involved with H&S surely has to re-asses situation's, or do you give them for life.? Situations do not change, or circumstances?......where were you born anyway, what council estate in Greenwich?

    I think you'll find it is LincsAddick you should be responding to Ken, not me.

    It's easier to reference people when you have your reading glasses on :smiley:
  • shine166 said:

    cabbles said:

    shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.

    They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
    Shine I'm glad you backed up this point with ref to your own individual circumstances and I can appreciate your frustration given what seems like a bit of a disparity here. However I truly believe the housing market is completely fucked and this is yet another example of the stupidity of it all.

    I can only cite my own personal circumstances. I rent in south east London. I see very little opportunity to get on the housing ladder in the not too distant future given the prices, even if I move a bit further out. This is because it will be a hard slog to save up for a deposit and 'live' at the same time. My earnings are such that I can't realistically save for a deposit but are probably too much to qualify for social housing. So essentially I'll crack on paying someone else's mortgage.

    I raise this point because I think there are many people in this situation and I understand that social housing is truly for those that need it, yet the way our country is growing in population and the costs of housing in certain areas, you could argue that those that might now qualify for social housing are on a higher income than before.

    Now I'm not saying it is right given your example and how much you earn, but we have a broken system that screws many people in many different ways.

    Now I know there are some on here that would put forward the argument that I and many other renters are lucky to have a roof over our head and we make too much of home ownership in this country. I agree that I am lucky to have a roof over my head as there are others that are far, far worse off. I would also agree that renting isn't such a big deal, was it not for private renting being cream cake country for Landlords and the levels tenants have to pay given the going rate. I mean I think I'm probably paying more in rent than some of my friends pay for their mortgage. It is what it is.

    I can see the arguments from many sides. I can see that if I were a private landlord with say one other property and I had a young family that it is their inheritance and investment for their children. The thing that makes my blood boil is things like hearing of new developments, like one my colleague went to see in the docklands (London City Island I think). She said that on the open day some guy bought five places. Great, does he really need that many? Is it fair that because he has the capital in place that he can take 5 places away from people that don't have one place yet and would like to take their first steps etc.

    I get that the government need to build and they have numerous schemes to try and get more supply into the market, but what's the point if someone can in one fell swoop take 5?

    The argument will run and run but my personal stance is that (although unlikely) the gvt needs to stamp out or restrict buy to let in this country. We don't have the luxury in terms of houses to allow it to continue. It won't happen of course because it is interfering in the free market I guess. These are all my basic thoughts so if I am incorrect factually here please let me know.
    in the position of buying a small plot of land and building a house from straw and cow shit, maybe try off the grid living.
    Not easy with current Planning restrictions.

  • edited July 2015
    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    cabbles said:

    shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.

    They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
    Shine I'm glad you backed up this point with ref to your own individual circumstances and I can appreciate your frustration given what seems like a bit of a disparity here. However I truly believe the housing market is completely fucked and this is yet another example of the stupidity of it all.

    I can only cite my own personal circumstances. I rent in south east London. I see very little opportunity to get on the housing ladder in the not too distant future given the prices, even if I move a bit further out. This is because it will be a hard slog to save up for a deposit and 'live' at the same time. My earnings are such that I can't realistically save for a deposit but are probably too much to qualify for social housing. So essentially I'll crack on paying someone else's mortgage.

    I raise this point because I think there are many people in this situation and I understand that social housing is truly for those that need it, yet the way our country is growing in population and the costs of housing in certain areas, you could argue that those that might now qualify for social housing are on a higher income than before.

    Now I'm not saying it is right given your example and how much you earn, but we have a broken system that screws many people in many different ways.

    Now I know there are some on here that would put forward the argument that I and many other renters are lucky to have a roof over our head and we make too much of home ownership in this country. I agree that I am lucky to have a roof over my head as there are others that are far, far worse off. I would also agree that renting isn't such a big deal, was it not for private renting being cream cake country for Landlords and the levels tenants have to pay given the going rate. I mean I think I'm probably paying more in rent than some of my friends pay for their mortgage. It is what it is.

    I can see the arguments from many sides. I can see that if I were a private landlord with say one other property and I had a young family that it is their inheritance and investment for their children. The thing that makes my blood boil is things like hearing of new developments, like one my colleague went to see in the docklands (London City Island I think). She said that on the open day some guy bought five places. Great, does he really need that many? Is it fair that because he has the capital in place that he can take 5 places away from people that don't have one place yet and would like to take their first steps etc.

    I get that the government need to build and they have numerous schemes to try and get more supply into the market, but what's the point if someone can in one fell swoop take 5?

    The argument will run and run but my personal stance is that (although unlikely) the gvt needs to stamp out or restrict buy to let in this country. We don't have the luxury in terms of houses to allow it to continue. It won't happen of course because it is interfering in the free market I guess. These are all my basic thoughts so if I am incorrect factually here please let me know.
    in the position of buying a small plot of land and building a house from straw and cow shit, maybe try off the grid living.
    Not easy with current Planning restrictions.

    Claim it's your culture/religion to build in this manner. Then get an ambulance chaser to stick his nose in the legal aid trough on your behalf. Scream racism to any objections and once you've sold on at a massive profit, repeat.
  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    cabbles said:

    shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    I believe this includes both wage earners ie couple on £20k each, about £9ph so hardly well off. Successive governments have failed to ensure sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand forcing up rents. This is not an attack on feckless scroungers but hard working people. The first of many.

    They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
    Shine I'm glad you backed up this point with ref to your own individual circumstances and I can appreciate your frustration given what seems like a bit of a disparity here. However I truly believe the housing market is completely fucked and this is yet another example of the stupidity of it all.

    I can only cite my own personal circumstances. I rent in south east London. I see very little opportunity to get on the housing ladder in the not too distant future given the prices, even if I move a bit further out. This is because it will be a hard slog to save up for a deposit and 'live' at the same time. My earnings are such that I can't realistically save for a deposit but are probably too much to qualify for social housing. So essentially I'll crack on paying someone else's mortgage.

    I raise this point because I think there are many people in this situation and I understand that social housing is truly for those that need it, yet the way our country is growing in population and the costs of housing in certain areas, you could argue that those that might now qualify for social housing are on a higher income than before.

    Now I'm not saying it is right given your example and how much you earn, but we have a broken system that screws many people in many different ways.

    Now I know there are some on here that would put forward the argument that I and many other renters are lucky to have a roof over our head and we make too much of home ownership in this country. I agree that I am lucky to have a roof over my head as there are others that are far, far worse off. I would also agree that renting isn't such a big deal, was it not for private renting being cream cake country for Landlords and the levels tenants have to pay given the going rate. I mean I think I'm probably paying more in rent than some of my friends pay for their mortgage. It is what it is.

    I can see the arguments from many sides. I can see that if I were a private landlord with say one other property and I had a young family that it is their inheritance and investment for their children. The thing that makes my blood boil is things like hearing of new developments, like one my colleague went to see in the docklands (London City Island I think). She said that on the open day some guy bought five places. Great, does he really need that many? Is it fair that because he has the capital in place that he can take 5 places away from people that don't have one place yet and would like to take their first steps etc.

    I get that the government need to build and they have numerous schemes to try and get more supply into the market, but what's the point if someone can in one fell swoop take 5?

    The argument will run and run but my personal stance is that (although unlikely) the gvt needs to stamp out or restrict buy to let in this country. We don't have the luxury in terms of houses to allow it to continue. It won't happen of course because it is interfering in the free market I guess. These are all my basic thoughts so if I am incorrect factually here please let me know.
    in the position of buying a small plot of land and building a house from straw and cow shit, maybe try off the grid living.
    Not easy with current Planning restrictions.


    I thought they had just been relaxed, certain conditions to do with semi permanent structures.
  • Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Addickted said:

    shine166 said:

    Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?

    Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.

    They should be asked to move on then so that someone with financial needs can be helped
    But they have a tenancy agreement.

    A legal contract.


    Which is usually 12 months no ?
    No.

    The majority of LA/HA tenancies are 'secure' and will be for life, as long as you don't break any of the terms of the agreement.


    Therein lies the problem then, surely conditions could be included in a contract. I know there is always the point raised about people then not having an incentive to progress.. but you can't keep falling back to that as most people do indeed want to better themselves to make the future easier.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!