Boiler? - Council tenants earning over £100k......
Discussion
Something which caught my eye this morning about councils wanting to freedom to set their own rents, highlighted by tenants with high earnings..... (Westminster council has over 2200 tenants who earn over £50k and over 200 who earn over £100k)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-133557...
I always thought council accomodation was for low earners/unemployed who couldn't afford 'proper' rents or mortgages....??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-133557...
I always thought council accomodation was for low earners/unemployed who couldn't afford 'proper' rents or mortgages....??
It is. Those examples are people who have strived to do better and succeeded.
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
Ranger 6 said:
Fair enough 
Like you say, nothing against people wanting and working to better themselves.
WHat I find more annoying is the thousands of benefit claimants living in areas like Westminster/Southbank/Canary Wharf in places that I wouldn't be able to afford working 60 hours per week! Like you say, nothing against people wanting and working to better themselves.All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
blindswelledrat said:
It is. Those examples are people who have strived to do better and succeeded.
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
That's a pretty wild assumption. It'd be interesting to see some figures on how many people who do better for themselves then move out in order for someone else to move up the waiting list. I'd like to think they're not all a bunch of Bob Crowes.Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
blindswelledrat said:
WHat I find more annoying is the thousands of benefit claimants living in areas like Westminster/Southbank/Canary Wharf in places that I wouldn't be able to afford working 60 hours per week!
All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
This sounds sensible. All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
As does the idea of having a cut-off income for people living in council properties; earn more than £x and you need to move out. (Although the obvious downside to this is ... well, obvious!)
Oli.
Oakey said:
That's a pretty wild assumption. It'd be interesting to see some figures on how many people who do better for themselves then move out in order for someone else to move up the waiting list. I'd like to think they're not all a bunch of Bob Crowes.
It's hardly a 'wild assupmtion'You earn £100k+.
Would you prefer to
a)Rent a crappy flat on a council estate or
b) Buy yourself a nice place.
I hardly think Ive said anything controversial in suggesting that a person would rather live in a nice place than an unpleasant place.
blindswelledrat said:
It is. Those examples are people who have strived to do better and succeeded.
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
apart for freeing up housing and stop paying B&B's to house people!Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
they should get the right to go to the top of the queue if their life turns to s
t but time to put them in the real world!SplatSpeed said:
apart for freeing up housing and stop paying B&B's to house people!
they should get the right to go to the top of the queue if their life turns to st but time to put them in the real world!
Purely speculation, but I don't see it working like that.they should get the right to go to the top of the queue if their life turns to s
t but time to put them in the real world!Hypothetically you make a rule saying "Once you earn £45k you are out".
Someone earns £43k and thier emplyer offers them a £5k pay rise.
They would simply refuse it because they would be considerably worse off and have to leave thier home. THus the only effect would be that infinitely less people would ever make a success of themselves leading to even less properties freeing themselves up.
blindswelledrat said:
It is. Those examples are people who have strived to do better and succeeded.
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
Surely you mean 'Now have done better, will buy their council house, cover it in cheap double glazing and tatty stone cladding and park a rather nasty footballer type Range Rover on the newly blocked drive'?Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
Flintstone said:
Surely you mean 'Now have done better, will buy their council house, cover it in cheap double glazing and tatty stone cladding and park a rather nasty footballer type Range Rover on the newly blocked drive'?
SO what if they do? Makes no difference. FOr every house the sell to someone, they build a housing association place to replace it (and probably cheaper).And when you look at the prices of council houses- they aren't that cheap to buy considering the areas.
blindswelledrat said:
SplatSpeed said:
apart for freeing up housing and stop paying B&B's to house people!
they should get the right to go to the top of the queue if their life turns to st but time to put them in the real world!
Purely speculation, but I don't see it working like that.they should get the right to go to the top of the queue if their life turns to s
t but time to put them in the real world!Hypothetically you make a rule saying "Once you earn £45k you are out".
Someone earns £43k and thier emplyer offers them a £5k pay rise.
They would simply refuse it because they would be considerably worse off and have to leave thier home. THus the only effect would be that infinitely less people would ever make a success of themselves leading to even less properties freeing themselves up.
increasing rents to market rates is another to where the property becomes profitable again!
they can leave into the private sector with an option to return if their life turns s
t!blindswelledrat said:
It's hardly a 'wild assupmtion'
You earn £100k+.
Would you prefer to
a)Rent a crappy flat on a council estate or
b) Buy yourself a nice place.
I hardly think Ive said anything controversial in suggesting that a person would rather live in a nice place than an unpleasant place.
I'd take A) and B). But the nice place would be in the countryside, which is where I'd be each weekend.You earn £100k+.
Would you prefer to
a)Rent a crappy flat on a council estate or
b) Buy yourself a nice place.
I hardly think Ive said anything controversial in suggesting that a person would rather live in a nice place than an unpleasant place.
SplatSpeed said:
increasing rents to market rates is another to where the property becomes profitable again!
they can leave into the private sector with an option to return if their life turns st!
GOod idea. A steadily increasing rent according to salary. THat could work.they can leave into the private sector with an option to return if their life turns s
t!Gut feeling is that the inefficiency of the councils would end up rendering it a pointless excercise!
blindswelledrat said:
It is. Those examples are people who have strived to do better and succeeded.
Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
There are some Housing Association tennants living in the street behind me, several of them run businesses that earn them some serious wedge, one I know puts the majority of his business through books the tax man never sees, he employs 3 people and has a great life.....so would I on the rent he pays. He has no intention of giving it up and said he'll pass it on to his son......along with the business. Another runs a driving school which enables him to buy his wife a new Audi cab every year. This is wrong IMO Nothing to get angry about really.
They were poor. Now have done better and most will go and buy htemselves a place of thier own in due course. THeres nothing whatsoever to be gained by penalising them for thier success
blindswelledrat said:
WHat I find more annoying is the thousands of benefit claimants living in areas like Westminster/Southbank/Canary Wharf in places that I wouldn't be able to afford working 60 hours per week!
All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
The argument against that is that you end up with (even more) divided areas. You get rich enclaves and poor ghettos. And if we want an inclusive society (which not everyone does) it is beneficial that most areas have a general mix of people – rich/poor, young/old, black/white etc.All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
The problem with a blanket ban on benefit claimants living in social housing in areas like Westminster is where to draw the line. If a working person living in social housing in the capital suddenly loses their job do you simply turf them out? Where do they go?
And as for the well-paid living in social housing – in most instances these people would not have been on a high salary at the time of becoming a tenant. Some people after a time get promoted, or change job, or just get general pay increases that mean they have more money but I’m not sure that that in itself is a good enough reason to force people out of social housing.
Of course, the sums mentioned here are not very typical – especially outside of London. I actually work for a housing association. We own and manage nearly 6,000 properties and I doubt very much that we have any residents earning over £100k a year and very very few earning more than £50k a year. We have a turnover of about 500 properties a year – this mainly occurs because of 1) people dying 2) people moving into rented accommodation in the private sector 3) people moving into some form of sheltered accommodation/care home and 4) people buying a house of their own.
The biggest problem – imho – is that there just isn’t enough social housing. We need to build more.
blindswelledrat said:
WHat I find more annoying is the thousands of benefit claimants living in areas like Westminster/Southbank/Canary Wharf in places that I wouldn't be able to afford working 60 hours per week!
All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
Spot on.All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
rover 623gsi said:
blindswelledrat said:
WHat I find more annoying is the thousands of benefit claimants living in areas like Westminster/Southbank/Canary Wharf in places that I wouldn't be able to afford working 60 hours per week!
All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
The argument against that is that you end up with (even more) divided areas. You get rich enclaves and poor ghettos. And if we want an inclusive society (which not everyone does) it is beneficial that most areas have a general mix of people – rich/poor, young/old, black/white etc.All council housing in expensive areas should be forefeited for key workers as far as I am concerned.
Edited by The real Apache on Wednesday 11th May 12:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff