to think if you earn over £60,000 and still rent your council home

[RedHelenB]

that in fact it is a lot better than if you had bought it cut price? At least it will go back into the general housing stock when you no longer need it.

Quite - just where are all these people losing jobs due to the economic climate suppposed to live?

YANBU

I think you probably already no longer need it if you earn that amount

'Wonders how long it takes before linking council housing to benefits starts'

Not so sure linking housing to economic need is such a problem. They should never have been sold off without the money being used to build new stock for people who couldn't afford to buy.

You're right they shouldn't have.

That's nothing to do imo with what I said though

It just reads as if you disapprove ;)

For myself, I think it;s sad that we've come to see council housing only as emergency housing for dire need. It would have been far better if the major landlords in this country were councils (or even not-for-profit housing associations if we had to go that far).

YANBU.

The housing situation is crazy. Just utterly, utterly crazy.

I'm In a council house and I'm terrified I'm going to be forced to buy it because we work. It's very unsettling.

£60,000 multiplied by 3 is £180,000. There are large parts of the country where that won't buy you a family home.

As northern says, in some parts of the uk a house costs 3 times that much and then of course there is a hefty deposit needed....

£60,000 wouldn't buy you a 2-bed flat here, let alone a family home.

my parents probably earned that between them when they both worked full time they never bought their house just paid their rent i see nothing wrong in paying rent on a council house not everybody can afford deposits for houses and want to move, council houses were meant for everybody that is why it is called social housing, OP yanbu at all

m In a council house and I'm terrified I'm going to be forced to buy it because we work. It's very unsettling.

surely the council can't force you to buy it is optional is your tenancy a secure one,

Having actually read the op

I get your point. If it's bought then there's one less house in the pool. If it's rented then in ten, twenty, forty, whatever years it will eventually go back into the pool.

I agree.

There's lots of social benefits to having a mix of incomes in each area of housing as well.

YANBU

I'm probably going to disagree but I think the fact that they were sold off means that with the remaining ones, we should be prioritising need.

On 60k you may not be able to buy a family home in some areas but it certainly gives you enough economic lea way to rent privately. Not being stuck with dodgy landlords etc. yes, I know it's never as long term secure as knowing you can be in the council house for the next 20yrs but as I said, we have to prioritise need. It's not ideal but selling them off without building more was catastrophic.

Personally, I loved the principles behind thatchers introduction of the right to buy but it was the worst thing for social housing policy.

Social housing should be for the most needy. Affordable housing to get on the housing ladder are to be encouraged (and part ownership schemes etc are good for this too) but council housing shouldn't be sold unless replaced.

Also council stock of housing should only be for the most needy with those better off either not being on council houses, or being made to pay full market value rent.

There is not enough council/social housing and the better off should not benefit from it at the expense of others in desperate need.

But they are still selling them off. And still not building replacements. It's not some historical situation we have to make the best of but current, highly damaging policy.

The hypocrisy of attacking tenants for renting council housing, while subsidising them £KKKK to buy the same council housing is stomach-churning.

I can never understand why the media don't call Gideon and minions out on this.

(OK, I can understand, but only because of my low opinion of parts of the media.)

where i live the council turned over house building to housing assoiciations (sp)as well as them so they are building more council houses but the need is still high in our area which is a shame but you cant turf people out of their houses to rehome others

The thing is though in the 50s 1/3 of the population lived in council homes and back then they were for everybody. The idea was that the local doctor would live side by side with the butcher and that it would build new communities. It is only relatively recently that they have been thought of as 'homes for the poor'. So those who have had them since the 50s but on better incomes are doing nothing wrong.

In addition, if you say only poorer people or unemployed can have CH then you take away all incentive to better yourself/get a better paid job/go back to work etc. Why would you if you may lose your house? Nobody nowadays is given a CH if they are over 60K so they must have got a better wage at some stage. Doesn't mean they should up and move. For example why should those who can't be bothered get priority over someone who has worked hard and finally got a good job (not saying all in CH can't be bothered as it is a minority!)

But overall house association building is nowhere near actual replacement rates for council houses.

YABU. It would be better for the person with the high salary to buy the old property, save the council taxpayer the ongoing maintenance bills and put a lump sum into the housing fund with which the council could build a newer, more efficient home to add to their housing stock.

Well that would be better.
But it doesn't happen does it.