High earners in social housing should move into private sector
Tony_Daniels
Posts: 3,575 Forum Member
✭✭✭
It seems wrong that there are people on very low wage having to fend for themselves in the private rental sector with insecure tenancies, sky-high rents and little or no safety net when you have people comparatively more affluent paying a fraction of the rent in social housing with security and all the rest of it.
Yes I know the solution is to build more houses but a realistic short-term solution could be to restrict social housing to those below a certain of threshold of individual or household income where applicable. If you can afford to fend for yourself in the private sector then you should be expected to. It's not ideal but surely it's the lesser of two evils, the other being the person on the low income who can barely afford to feed themselves once the rent and bills has been paid out who don't know from one 6 month period to the next if they're going to need to find £1500 deposit and moving in fees/costs out of nowhere.
Yes I know the solution is to build more houses but a realistic short-term solution could be to restrict social housing to those below a certain of threshold of individual or household income where applicable. If you can afford to fend for yourself in the private sector then you should be expected to. It's not ideal but surely it's the lesser of two evils, the other being the person on the low income who can barely afford to feed themselves once the rent and bills has been paid out who don't know from one 6 month period to the next if they're going to need to find £1500 deposit and moving in fees/costs out of nowhere.
0
Comments
Define High earners,
Define High earners,
I'd say the late Bob Crowe earning.£130,000 a year while stilk renting a council house was one for a starter.
Up to 21,000 council houses are occupied by tenants with an income of more than £60,000.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-council-house-tenants-earn-60000/17393
Well you could also say anyone who can afford to buy should move out as well, instead of being able to buy that house at big discount of upto £103,000
If 4 adults are earning £60k between them they are hardly rich.
Personally I don't know why anyone would prefer social housing if they can afford private housing. If I was wealthy enough to afford private housing I would move out of this Housing Association house that we have lived in for over 40 years like a shot.
But what about the presumably wealthy people who are being given the chance to buy their social housing home. Is it right to sell houses in the social sector to these people when as you say there are low income people in private housing struggling to feed themselves after paying the rent and bills.
Well when you say private housing do you mean rent or buy.
But they can afford to rent privately and give their council house to someone who needs it more than they do.
But that is the old way of thinking, needs dont come into it. Untill private sector tenants get the same rights as council tenants it does not benefit them to move into private rental. were you can be made homeless for being a good tenant and do nothing wrong. All that has to happen is the private landlord wants his place back to sell, or for family or friends to move into or can make more money by getting rid of one lot of tenants to bring in another. Were in council housing you can only loss a tenacy for doing something wrong.
Thats wrong IMO. Council houses should be for the needy, not the wealthy.
That is why it is wrong that they are also sold off with big discounts.. But also the private sector rental market does not offer any kind of secuity for its tenants
I agree. Its a terrible idea.
There are two things to remember about the Right to Buy scheme.
1. There are fairly high discounts in the right to buy and this acts to increase the wealth of those who take advantage and actually improving social mobility by giving relatively poorer people an asset.
2. These properties will lean towards the older and therefore require much more maintenance - which would fall on the cash strapped local councils to do - once a person buys a property they become liable.
I take the point that up to now local authorities have not been able to use the money raised to build new homes - I believe this has now changed for the new Right to Buy Scheme.
You have previously stated you don't believe in social housing. That you support the idea of it all being sold off.
Now you think it's a good thing, but only for those in need.
This sort of flip-flopping of belief is what we see a lot from the Conservatives these days.
In order to support a policy they say one thing one day, then the precise opposite the next day!
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/may/26/ex-council-homes-london-gold-mine-landlords. Ex-council homes in London are a 'gold mine' for landlords
I would say it depends on how wealthy they have become since becoming social housing tenants.
Perhaps they are people who worked hard and improved their qualifications and earning potential. How would evicting them inspire others to aspire to a better life?
Labour has already admitted that it offered nothing for those who aspire.
nobody in a council house should be allowed to own a car, or have subscription TV services. all occupants.
sorted!
It states the top 2 earners in the article.
Well that also depends on what you call wealthy, paying private rent does not make you wealthy. Apart from the price of rents, the other differance is secuity. No secuilty in the private sector rental at all, no matter how much of a good tenant you are. Landlord could want to sell anytime, or move family or friends into the place or just could get more money from new tenants. Like a landlord can make more money renting rooms out than renting the place to a family.
"Don't seek a better job because we'll kick you out of your home if you manage to better yourself".
How about we stop propping up an unsustainable housing/private rental market with taxpayers money and just build more houses instead?