Should people on a good wage say £40,000 pA give up their social housing home?

[Cheekychops84]

not a personal opinion would just like others views on this matter? Is £40,000 enough to save up to get a mortgage or privately rent if you have 3 children ?

I would say this depends very much on where you live. In many parts of Scotland £40k would get you a fairly decent private rented accomodation and allow you to save for a mortgage. But am sure it is different in the South.

I am off the opinion that if you can afford to move from Social Housing, you should. As soon as we could afford it, we bought and we didnt earn £40k a year between us.But then we didnt have a recession and then you could get 95% mortgages.

In theory it makes sense. However, sometimes reality gets in the way .... I agree with Suzanne in that if you can afford to get out of social housing you should .....

Probably. They should have the option to buy too though if theey don't want to move. Do you pay a set amount for social housing in the UK? Perhaps that could be means assessed, it would certainly make for a fairer system.

Depends on their job security as well as what they earn. People arent feeling very secure which is showing in the lack of spending they are doing.
So therefore people earning the amount stated arent exactly going to feel secure enough to be leaving a social housing home to take on a mortgage.
Common sense surely.

No idea ? We don't earn that much but we both do basic paid jobs I'm a carer oh is a street cleaner we are over the threshold for tax credits now but jus wondering if they will start kicking ppl out if ur over a certain threshold for earnings etc

The whole "social housing" thing needs a complete revamp.

Instead of giving people a house that they can stay in forever, all council houses should be done up to a decent rentable standard.

They should then be let out at market values.

Alongside this we revamp housing benefit such that people get enough subsidy to actually rent the size of house that they need at market value.

So there will be no difference in price between council-owned and privately-owned houses.

The housing benefit bill will go up, but the amount that the council (I'm using this as shorthand, I know it's not exactly "the council") brings in will also go up, so it will balance out.

If your earnings are very low, you will receive enough housing benefit to rent the size of house that you need.

As your earnings increase, the amount of housing benefit you receive will decrease, but you will still be able to rent the size of house that you need.

People earning £40,000 may or may not get a bit of housing benefit, depending on how expensive it is to rent a house in that area.

There will be no massive step-up between renting from the council (which currently often happens at well below the market rate) and renting from anywhere else.

If you leave a council-rented house you will not have to worry about "what happens if I lose my job" because you will know that if you lose your job you will get sufficient housing benefit to continue to rent a house of the size that you need.

No, but if they paid a fair rent there's be profit to build more housing for others. Ideally there needs to be more social housing so I'm very much in favour of this kind of way of doing so.

You could potentially be saving a bit on that sort of money if you were paying a social housing rent. However, you'd also have to be prepared to sacrifice that financial comfort margin every month to pay off a mortgage in an expensive part of the country. It would depend on things like commuting costs as well, and whether there's anything else needing to be saved for, like higher education costs for the DC. I'm not sure I would make that kind of sacrifice in the current climate if I was sitting pretty in social housing, especially if it meant paying double to live in the same kind of house. And I'm disgustingly po-faced about doing the right thing.

Personally, I don't feel they should have to. By telling people that they will have to give up their home if they earn too much you are basically telling them that it's not worth their while to bother working as hard as they can.

It would also not be fair that some families would be entitled to social housing and some wouldn't. It's either there for everyone or it's not.

I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting a council/social property, but at least I know I'm as entitled as the next person. The current system is fair when it comes to who is allocated houses, and people should only be moved on if they can't afford the rent, or if they are under occupying a property that comes with below market value rent.

Right now there is a huge disincentive for anyone to ever leave social housing, because it is too cheap. Make it cost the same as all other housing, then subsidise those who need it (and not those who don't need it).

How in the name of frick would putting up the price of council house rents help absolutely anybody at all Trills. The whole point of them is that there's somewhere cheap and nasty to house all the peasants for next to nothing.

In theory I think that someone on £40k a year or £40k as a couple should move into private rented or buy, but I am aware that it's not as simple as that.
I also disagree with the 'right to buy' scheme. There aren't enough social houses available in the uk so it's nonsense to sell more off. I also feel that people who had say a 3 bed house when 3/4/5 etc children were living at home should have to downsize when the numbers are fewer. Again I know this is wholly emotive subject and accept that people will flame me for my opinion.

If you put up the rent, but also put up housing benefit for those who need it, then if you earn very little (or nothing) then nothing will change for you.

What it would do is gently bridge the gulf between social housing and other housing.

(and if you read my longer post I specifically said that you'd have to make them not be "nasty"!)

If you force people who are earning good money to give up social housing then you get gettos of the long term lazy. I would prefer to charge well off social housing tenants the market rate. The extra money could then help people with lower incomes.

People get attached to their friends and neighbourhood.

But the gulf between social housing and other housing doesn't need gently (or otherwise) bridging.....

There's a purpose to social housing, and it generally serves that purpose well. What you are proposing serves no point at all, other that to satisfy sour grapes in those who can't get to the top of the housing list.

I guess we disagree there.

I think it's wrong that someone who qualified for social housing in the past and now earns good money should pay less for their rent than someone who hasn't quite made it into social housing and is struggling to pay their private rent.

this thread will kick off!

I would charge the former more rent so as to be able to afford better housing benefit for the latter.

Funnily enough DW and I were having a conversation along these lines this morning. We own (with mortgage) our own home (I earn upwards of amount quoted on this thread but by less than £10,000) in a not particularly glam part of London. We were talking about friends who live in more modern social housing in slightly nicer areas for about half the amount we pay in mortgage pcm. DW was saying why would you move out of social housing if living in it gave you more disposable income every month - I'm sure it won't be the case for much longer to be quite honest. I think the days of a council house for life will end soon. It always amazes me when you walk past council estates how many smart cars are parked in the locale.

How in the name of frick would putting up the price of council house rents help absolutely anybody at all Trills. The whole point of them is that there's somewhere cheap and nasty to house all the peasants for next to nothing.

I really hope that that post was tongue in cheek.

Personally I think that the system is fine as it is, anyone is eligible for social housing priority for those most in need. Otherwise it would do nothing but segregate people even more. To me it is clear that the problem is that there are so many people in desperate need of social housing because they are either out of work/serial breeders/unable to afford to buy or rent and I think that these problems should be tackled first.

After a few years on benefits my credit rating is rubbish..... Even if I had saved for a deposit, would I get a mortgage knocking 50?

Depends where they live and why they might need it. If someone is elderly or disabled it might be very hard for them to move. My downstairs neighbour is elderly, has cancer and has some mild dementia, and I doubt the issue would come up as she isn't well off, but I know from her son that she gets very disoriented in a different place and stops remembering how to do things.

I would imagine some disabilities might have similar effects. So I guess there are those special cases that would need considering.

I think it's wrong that someone who qualified for social housing in the past and now earns good money should pay less for their rent than someone who hasn't quite made it into social housing and is struggling to pay their private rent.

Are you serious, people don't qualify for social housing because they don't earn good money. Anyone can apply for social housing, priority is given to the homeless, disabled, basically the most in need. Nowhere on the housing form does it ask for your earnings.

Wasn't there a report recently about people living in Westminster in council housing but earning over £100k?

Well I agree that it depends on whereabouts in the country you live. But I read that there are people on £100,000 a year in social housing. Now that is really very wrong indeed.