Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
'Middle Class' Bedroom Tax?
Addickted
Posts: 19,456
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650
0
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 detail2
-
Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?5
-
Good question........shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
0 -
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
2 -
-
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=sslAddickted said:
Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
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 benefit1 -
harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
0 -
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.Lincsaddick said:
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=sslAddickted said:
Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
1 -
Then there circumstances have changed, and like all people in social housing there position should be assessed every few years.Addickted said:
Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
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.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
2
-
yes .. I read that as well .. ((:>)Addickted said:
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.Lincsaddick said:
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=sslAddickted said:
Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
0 -
Would you really want to 'inherit' this?
0 -
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 onken from bexley said:
asked with changing and implementing new policiAddickted said:
Because 5 years ago they may have been unemployed with an urgent housing need.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
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.
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 happens0 -
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.Addickted said:Would you really want to 'inherit' this?
3 -
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?2 -
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 todayAddickted said:Would you really want to 'inherit' this?
1 -
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.4 -
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 folksAddickted said:Would you really want to 'inherit' this?
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.shine166 said:harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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.9 -
cabbles said:
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.shine166 said:harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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.
3 -
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/53/36/533669_e92509d6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/533669&h=480&w=640&tbnid=aO8rPw0fZUwqgM:&zoom=1&docid=QBFo55LG5tFd4M&ei=JTSZVZfvE6OI7QbKip64Aw&tbm=isch&ved=0CDQQMygTMBMAddickted said:Would you really want to 'inherit' this?
Because this could be the alternative0 -
I think you'll find it is LincsAddick you should be responding to Ken, not me.ken from bexley said: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?
It's easier to reference people when you have your reading glasses on
0 -
Not easy with current Planning restrictions.shine166 said:
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.cabbles said:
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.shine166 said:harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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.
0 -
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:
Not easy with current Planning restrictions.shine166 said:
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.cabbles said:
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.shine166 said:harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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.
0 -
Addickted said:
Not easy with current Planning restrictions.shine166 said:
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.cabbles said:
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.shine166 said:harveys gardener said:
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.shine166 said:Why are people earning 40k a year living in subsidised social housing in the first place ?
They are not exactly poor though, believe me.. I survive on a fraction of that and still probably pay more rent than them.
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.
I thought they had just been relaxed, certain conditions to do with semi permanent structures.
0 -
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.Addickted said:
0 -
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 system8
