Another Cameron Era Policy Dropped - "Pay to Stay"

DotheboyshallDotheboyshall Posts: 40,583
Forum Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38058402

Wonder when Cameron & Osborne will be finally airbrushed out of history?

Comments

  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good news. It was a terrible policy.
  • MargMckMargMck Posts: 24,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good news. It was a terrible policy.

    It was. I know family in social housing where the parents work all hours possible plus beg for more overtime because one of the children is high up in the GB ranks for possibly making it to the Winter Olympics and eventually turn pro, but funding support for coaches and extensive travel is zilch if you are not a recognised 1-2-3 medal hope.

    They will be glad to see more of the shyte announced by Osborne chucked in the bin.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    :confused: The original policy is still there.
    Councils and housing associations would be able to decide whether to impose higher rents, the government said.
    ...
    Under the current rules, social landlords can charge tenants with an income of over £60,000 market or near-market rent.
  • swingalegswingaleg Posts: 102,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I'm reading the story as being that Councils will now have a choice as to whether to implement this policy or not

    Whereas before it would have been mandatory
  • FizzbinFizzbin Posts: 36,827
    Forum Member
    It was aimed at higher earners. I bet they reintroduce it so everyone pays it.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good news. It was a terrible policy.

    But was it right for example that Bob Crowe ( he has now died and I am not picking on him just using as an example ) was in a council house paying the same rent as a struggling single parent or low income family whilst he was on £145 k per year plus other benefits ? There are others on very high incomes who admittedly were not originally but is it not fair that if they want to stay in a house they care about that now that they can more than afford it then have to pay closer to a market rent.

    This does not have to be implemented to everyone on a salary of over whatever is decided ??? as they may have kids or special requirements etc so the money gets used up but it could be means tested. We are short of social housing and I don't think it is fair that people who are now doing very well should be able to choose to stay and pay no more whilst others go without a home or struggle on low incomes.
  • bspacebspace Posts: 14,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    But was it right for example that Bob Crowe ( he has now died and I am not picking on him just using as an example ) was in a council house paying the same rent as a struggling single parent or low income family whilst he was on £145 k per year plus other benefits ? There are others on very high incomes who admittedly were not originally but is it not fair that if they want to stay in a house they care about that now that they can more than afford it then have to pay closer to a market rent.

    This does not have to be implemented to everyone on a salary of over whatever is decided ??? as they may have kids or special requirements etc so the money gets used up but it could be means tested. We are short of social housing and I don't think it is fair that people who are now doing very well should be able to choose to stay and pay no more whilst others go without a home or struggle on low incomes.

    Then the fair solution is to build more social housing, not to promote division and hostility.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    But was it right for example that Bob Crowe ( he has now died and I am not picking on him just using as an example ) was in a council house paying the same rent as a struggling single parent or low income family whilst he was on £145 k per year plus other benefits ? There are others on very high incomes who admittedly were not originally but is it not fair that if they want to stay in a house they care about that now that they can more than afford it then have to pay closer to a market rent.

    This does not have to be implemented to everyone on a salary of over whatever is decided ??? as they may have kids or special requirements etc so the money gets used up but it could be means tested. We are short of social housing and I don't think it is fair that people who are now doing very well should be able to choose to stay and pay no more whilst others go without a home or struggle on low incomes.

    Crow was paying full rent, most of his neighbours would probably have been getting at least some housing benefit.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dodrade wrote: »
    Crow was paying full rent, most of his neighbours would probably have been getting at least some housing benefit.
    And Crow could have bought up the property at a huge discount. At least the council still own the property.
  • DotheboyshallDotheboyshall Posts: 40,583
    Forum Member
    And Crow could have bought up the property had a huge discount. At least the council still own the property.
    If people were forced to pay higher rents then many would decide buying - at a massive discount - would be a better option.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizzbin wrote: »
    It was aimed at higher earners. I bet they reintroduce it so everyone pays it.
    But it wasn't. It would have affected all households that had at least 2 people working full time.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If people were forced to pay higher rents then many would decide buying - at a massive discount - would be a better option.
    Exactly. Which I think was the aim.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    nomad2king wrote: »
    :confused: The original policy is still there.
    But it is voluntary. Most housing associations and councils were against the policy so are unlikely to implement it out of choice. Do remember as well that under this stupid policy the Council would not have kept the extra income it would have gone to the government's coffers.
  • MorlockMorlock Posts: 3,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The bedroom tax should be scrapped next, it's another spiteful policy aimed at punishing social housing tenants with no advantage to anyone.
  • DotheboyshallDotheboyshall Posts: 40,583
    Forum Member
    Morlock wrote: »
    The bedroom tax should be scrapped next, it's another spiteful policy aimed at punishing social housing tenants with no advantage to anyone.

    They've scrapped a proposal to extend it to pensioners as it would cost too many votes - oops be unfair to people who have worked all their lives.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    They've scrapped a proposal to extend it to pensioners as it would cost too many votes - oops be unfair to people who have worked all their lives.

    Dont think its been scrapped yet, but it is being delayed for a year. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjIpLH--bvQAhVlGsAKHb_tBGYQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitics%2Fgovernment-backtracks-on-a-new-bedroom-tax-which-is-set-to-hit-thousands-of-poorer-pensioners-a7430586.html&usg=AFQjCNG975EWjocBkOk3usmHqZcG6BVweg But it does need scrapping as this will cost more money, and will cause lots of problems for the people effected and thier families
  • specklyspeckly Posts: 1,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    But was it right for example that Bob Crowe ( he has now died and I am not picking on him just using as an example ) was in a council house paying the same rent as a struggling single parent or low income family whilst he was on £145 k per year plus other benefits ? There are others on very high incomes who admittedly were not originally but is it not fair that if they want to stay in a house they care about that now that they can more than afford it then have to pay closer to a market rent.

    This does not have to be implemented to everyone on a salary of over whatever is decided ??? as they may have kids or special requirements etc so the money gets used up but it could be means tested. We are short of social housing and I don't think it is fair that people who are now doing very well should be able to choose to stay and pay no more whilst others go without a home or struggle on low incomes.

    I can see your point, but if social housing is only reserved for those most in need, then the invevitable outcome is concentrations of high deprivation. It's not really ideal to have areas where almsot all the residents are desparately in need. That leads to all sorts of problems. Better, I think, that there should be a mix of tenants in this sort of housing, but that will require more of it.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    speckly wrote: »
    I can see your point, but if social housing is only reserved for those most in need, then the invevitable outcome is concentrations of high deprivation. It's not really ideal to have areas where almsot all the residents are desparately in need. That leads to all sorts of problems. Better, I think, that there should be a mix of tenants in this sort of housing, but that will require more of it.

    The solution to that is to have mixed housing whereby social and non-social housing are in the same neighbourhood as opposed to those who can afford to live in non-social housing living in it.
  • specklyspeckly Posts: 1,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    The solution to that is to have mixed housing whereby social and non-social housing are in the same neighbourhood as opposed to those who can afford to live in non-social housing living in it.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people of oppose having social housing built near to them.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    speckly wrote: »
    Unfortunately, a lot of people of oppose having social housing built near to them.

    Perhaps but then a lot of people oppose having HS2 built near them but it is still happening.
  • Mark_Jones9Mark_Jones9 Posts: 12,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I guess those on £31,000 (£40,000 in London) or more paying substantially below market rent in social housing were deemed deserving of largesse. While those who are too ill or disabled to work on ESA wrag are considered undeserving of any more than £73.10 (£57.90 under 25) a week.
Sign In or Register to comment.