I work for an housing association. I have no problem with working people living in our houses. But two things that really makes my blood boil is .people who own there own homes rent it out to pay for there mortgage whilst living in low rented housing associations homes claiming housing benefit. ( yes I do have proof ) and then there people who live in our houses . Whilst claiming every bloody benefit going. They have a massive 50 inch plasma screens tv .Do more drugs than are friends from the toolbox. Brand new trainers. Nice motor and caravan on the drive. Telling me there skint but going to Spain for 2 weeks next week. Who bloody paying for this the bloody tax payers.i work my ass off sometime it makes you wonder why bother working. Rant nearly over .then they have the cheek if they got a dripping tap they want a new kitchen. What they should get is a bloody job some comdoms to stop them having baby's and some bleach and a hoover to tidy there house's .but these people know how to play the system
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
Stand corrected...... worrying thing is I was wearing my glasses?....... perhaps I need to get them checked eh!.......
So Lincs...... which particular Greenwich Housing estate was it........
The only sensible way for the policy to work is to scale your housing benefit cut as your wages increase above the threshold, just like how income tax thresholds work - for example for every pound above the threshold you earn, you lose 60p of your HB, therefore you are still better off being in work.
Unfortunately all of this tinkering with various tax/benefit changes is simply that - tinkering at the edges that fails to address the problem our country faces - too many low paid jobs being subsidised by the taxpayer topping up worker's incomes to ensure that they can eat and a roof over their heads. It is pointless to talk about benefit changes without also addressing low wages otherwise the problem is not being solved, it is just being moved from one section of society to another, and usually not in a good way.
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
It was me who used the term 'outsider' .. not in the context of someone from a privileged background or one who was brought up in relative 'prosperity', well away from the realities of living in social housing .. the point I was making was that your 'plan' was a fine theory, but was a 'plan' drawn up by an idealistic outsider based on a social and economic policy, divorced from the reality of having to actually go and knock on the door of someone living in social housing to say: 'sorry mate, your income now exceeds the statutory minimum that allows you to stay here, you have three weeks to get you and your family somewhere else to live' .. or words to that effect
Doesnt this idea also fly in the face of right to buy, how can you have both. Think the Tories are on seriously dodgy ground on this one
Does it not fit perfectly? If you earn an OK wage, your rent is going to climb, so you'd better get a mortgage and buy the place instead...
This is what happened with my parents in the early 80's . The council rent was higher than a potential mortgage so buying the house was a no brainer.
My Dad in his 80's still lives there . Like a lot of his generation he has kept his 3 bedroom property .If he hadn't brought the house he would almost certainly have been forced to move on or charged the bedroom tax . I think this policy talks about household income . Will it mean that when their children find work that this is factored in?
It is a shame that this is not a genuine choice .It is ironic in the context of this budget that some ex local authority properties in places like Camden and Islington would benefit from the raise in inheritance tax fresholds. I had an ex colleague who lived in such a property . His daughter persuaded him into buying it a couple of years ago so that they could achieve the right to buy discount. She now owns it outright with her husband and has a property worth over £1million .
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
Doesnt this idea also fly in the face of right to buy, how can you have both. Think the Tories are on seriously dodgy ground on this one
Does it not fit perfectly? If you earn an OK wage, your rent is going to climb, so you'd better get a mortgage and buy the place instead...
no because the principal is if you earn a certain amount you don't need the help, and there are others are do, so to then give you more by offering a discounted house to buy completely contradicts the policy of wanting to free up council houses for those who do need it. If it mean freeing up funds to build more then OK but in reality it doesn't.
its a stupid policy, it will discourage people on benefits going to work because now they will be scared that they will lose their home if they do.
As I pointed out on the previous page, not everybody thinks like that..: some people actually want to progress. So we need to stop hiding behind excuses and fix things
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
London is fucked.
Succinctly put and accurate. The other thing that winds me up in all this is the 'Kirsty and Phil' fashionable property/location programmes. I know it's a nationwide programme and not just London, but it paints a very abnormal picture of what buying is all about. Either one of them with a couple having a drink in a local pub, Phil's about to call the estate agent and put and offer down for the couple. The estate agent says they accept. They all have a drink and celebrate. No. As my colleague was ranting the other day, that's when everything starts to go wrong. The cameras are nowhere to be seen when the buyers get hit with hidden fees or something goes wrong with the survey. It might seem a stupid point but those property programmes where mrs herbert suddenly becomes a 'project manager' are not what we need to be exposed to given the current state of the market.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
London is fucked.
Succinctly put and accurate. The other thing that winds me up in all this is the 'Kirsty and Phil' fashionable property/location programmes. I know it's a nationwide programme and not just London, but it paints a very abnormal picture of what buying is all about. Either one of them with a couple having a drink in a local pub, Phil's about to call the estate agent and put and offer down for the couple. The estate agent says they accept. They all have a drink and celebrate. No. As my colleague was ranting the other day, that's when everything starts to go wrong. The cameras are nowhere to be seen when the buyers get hit with hidden fees or something goes wrong with the survey. It might seem a stupid point but those property programmes where mrs herbert suddenly becomes a 'project manager' are not what we need to be exposed to given the current state of the market.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
any similarities between any 'reality TV' programme and 'real life' are purely coincidental ..
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
London is fucked.
Succinctly put and accurate. The other thing that winds me up in all this is the 'Kirsty and Phil' fashionable property/location programmes. I know it's a nationwide programme and not just London, but it paints a very abnormal picture of what buying is all about. Either one of them with a couple having a drink in a local pub, Phil's about to call the estate agent and put and offer down for the couple. The estate agent says they accept. They all have a drink and celebrate. No. As my colleague was ranting the other day, that's when everything starts to go wrong. The cameras are nowhere to be seen when the buyers get hit with hidden fees or something goes wrong with the survey. It might seem a stupid point but those property programmes where mrs herbert suddenly becomes a 'project manager' are not what we need to be exposed to given the current state of the market.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
any similarities between any 'reality TV' programme and 'real life' are purely coincidental ..
I've never heard Kirsty and Phil mention indemnity insurance, drain surveys, planning issues from the 1970's......Moving really is a pain in the ass.
its a stupid policy, it will discourage people on benefits going to work because now they will be scared that they will lose their home if they do.
As I pointed out on the previous page, not everybody thinks like that..: some people actually want to progress. So we need to stop hiding behind excuses and fix things
But it will not be progress for those hard working men and wonen who lose housing support and then there home by getting a slightly better payed job. Unless you inherit a house, then to be able to afford to live in London without state aid you need to earn close to £ 100,000. I would estimate because of housing costs.
Something has to be done. There is no greater obscenity than a council tenant having an expensive BMW parked outside. Just look around and you will see examples. Social housing should be for those currently in social need.
Not sure if this is the right answer. My solution would be three year tenancies with means tests before a further term is granted.
its a stupid policy, it will discourage people on benefits going to work because now they will be scared that they will lose their home if they do.
As I pointed out on the previous page, not everybody thinks like that..: some people actually want to progress. So we need to stop hiding behind excuses and fix things
But it will not be progress for those hard working men and wonen who lose housing support and then there home by getting a slightly better payed job. Unless you inherit a house, then to be able to afford to live in London without state aid you need to earn close to £ 100,000. I would estimate because of housing costs.
Depends what you value as progress I guess. Living in a nicer area, is more valuable to some than having extra money in the bank.
I work for an housing association. I have no problem with working people living in our houses. But two things that really makes my blood boil is .people who own there own homes rent it out to pay for there mortgage whilst living in low rented housing associations homes claiming housing benefit. ( yes I do have proof ) and then there people who live in our houses . Whilst claiming every bloody benefit going. They have a massive 50 inch plasma screens tv .Do more drugs than are friends from the toolbox. Brand new trainers. Nice motor and caravan on the drive. Telling me there skint but going to Spain for 2 weeks next week. Who bloody paying for this the bloody tax payers.i work my ass off sometime it makes you wonder why bother working. Rant nearly over .then they have the cheek if they got a dripping tap they want a new kitchen. What they should get is a bloody job some comdoms to stop them having baby's and some bleach and a hoover to tidy there house's .but these people know how to play the system
Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
London is fucked.
Succinctly put and accurate. The other thing that winds me up in all this is the 'Kirsty and Phil' fashionable property/location programmes. I know it's a nationwide programme and not just London, but it paints a very abnormal picture of what buying is all about. Either one of them with a couple having a drink in a local pub, Phil's about to call the estate agent and put and offer down for the couple. The estate agent says they accept. They all have a drink and celebrate. No. As my colleague was ranting the other day, that's when everything starts to go wrong. The cameras are nowhere to be seen when the buyers get hit with hidden fees or something goes wrong with the survey. It might seem a stupid point but those property programmes where mrs herbert suddenly becomes a 'project manager' are not what we need to be exposed to given the current state of the market.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
any similarities between any 'reality TV' programme and 'real life' are purely coincidental ..
I've never heard Kirsty and Phil mention indemnity insurance, drain surveys, planning issues from the 1970's......Moving really is a pain in the ass.
Shouldn't have to. In their world everything is done and dusted as soon as either one phone's the estate agent with the offer, anything else immaterial
Social housing should be for those currently in social need. .
I don't think that's such a great idea, if you create an area with just less well off you create a real problem area where nobody wants to go near let alone live. I think the real problem we have is, for the last 50 or so years we have all become obsessive with home ownership and governments distancing themselves from housing policies.
I have family and friends who live in council houses (or trusts), they have had more children than me,holidays, nice cars and all the other material niceties that make life enjoyable. But give it a few decades and I will be in the same smelly care home as them only the difference will be I will be selling my house to fund the end of my life. who's the mug? Nothing wrong with social housing except the stigma we have created around it. I'm sure its not the same in other parts of western Europe.
Comments
Top post
So Lincs...... which particular Greenwich Housing estate was it........
Unfortunately all of this tinkering with various tax/benefit changes is simply that - tinkering at the edges that fails to address the problem our country faces - too many low paid jobs being subsidised by the taxpayer topping up worker's incomes to ensure that they can eat and a roof over their heads. It is pointless to talk about benefit changes without also addressing low wages otherwise the problem is not being solved, it is just being moved from one section of society to another, and usually not in a good way.
This is what happened with my parents in the early 80's . The council rent was higher than a potential mortgage so buying the house was a no brainer.
My Dad in his 80's still lives there . Like a lot of his generation he has kept his 3 bedroom property .If he hadn't brought the house he would almost certainly have been forced to move on or charged the bedroom tax . I think this policy talks about household income . Will it mean that when their children find work that this is factored in?
It is a shame that this is not a genuine choice .It is ironic in the context of this budget that some ex local authority properties in places like Camden and Islington would benefit from the raise in inheritance tax fresholds. I had an ex colleague who lived in such a property . His daughter persuaded him into buying it a couple of years ago so that they could achieve the right to buy discount. She now owns it outright with her husband and has a property worth over £1million .
If you are going to 'means test' income tax rates, surely means testing rent 'discounts' is fair? or does fairness only apply to handouts
London is fucked.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
Not sure if this is the right answer. My solution would be three year tenancies with means tests before a further term is granted.
Depends what you value as progress I guess. Living in a nicer area, is more valuable to some than having extra money in the bank.
I think the real problem we have is, for the last 50 or so years we have all become obsessive with home ownership and governments distancing themselves from housing policies.
I have family and friends who live in council houses (or trusts), they have had more children than me,holidays, nice cars and all the other material niceties that make life enjoyable. But give it a few decades and I will be in the same smelly care home as them only the difference will be I will be selling my house to fund the end of my life. who's the mug?
Nothing wrong with social housing except the stigma we have created around it. I'm sure its not the same in other parts of western Europe.