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 
Comments
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
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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 legal contract.
Which is usually 12 months no ?
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
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?
Regardless of that, there is a risk of creating disincentives with earnings thresholds.
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.
Because this could be the alternative
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.
It's easier to reference people when you have your reading glasses on
I thought they had just been relaxed, certain conditions to do with semi permanent structures.