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.

So let's vote for councils that make it happen rather than dig heels in, tolerate the status quo and live with an ever-decreasing stock of decrepit old houses.

Maintenance of council housing is funded via rents

Would be even better if the lump sum were a commercial price and sufficient to pay for the replacement, not a cut rate.

Oh, and there's the little matter of new building sites and local services not being infinitely elastic.

I get what you are saying but someone earning that can afford to rent privately. Social housing should be for those in greatest need and that is not someone on that level of salary. To be honest I find the idea of someone earning that in a council house immoral.

Mrsjay. I don't trust this government.. what might be secure now may not be in time.. They slip things in and then push you further and further down stealth like.

And social housing is not fucking subsidised by the bastard taxpayer (To other posters). Give your heads a wobble man.

taxpayer doesn't have ongoing maintenance bills! that is covered by rental income in council housing and with housing association housing

with the RTB discount, it is improbably that the sale of a council house will cover anything near like what is needed to build one new home

indeed, developments do not take place for one new home, and the council does not build them

what happens is that contracts go to developers, who have a social housing element within a larger scheme ( usually)

this is what they bid on to gain the contract

then once the contract is won - they can (Legally) say that they are not making enough profit and therefore reduce the amount of social housing homes

I think council housing has got to be continual assessed and if your income increases then so too your rent so eventually its the same as other private rented properties in your area (tho I'm sure this may already happen). My thought on council housing is for when u are in need and then your need improves unfortunately you should start to move into private/ look to buy. A council house shouldn't be for a life and it should be looked at a temporary home.

If you own a house you often up size or down size due to your circumstances so why should it be different for a council house.

I would have thought that someone earning that much money and paying council rent would have been able to save up some money over the years and buy a house, thereby freeing up the council house for someone on the waiting list.

I earn around that much, and there's no way I'd deprive someone else of social housing. As Wishful says, it's immoral.

yes the secure tenancy is sneaky people do not know where they are with it and each council has different rules about it (i think) i know i had a secure tenancy when i lived in a council house but i was a tenant before a certain year new tenants don't have that security

I don't think council houses should be rtb as others have said, we won't be able to build the housing stock for what you sell the property for.

If one person in the UK is earning £60k, according to this they are in the top 97%. Now, that will fall if you have dependants, but really, it's bloody insulting for people to be bleeting "oh, you can't afford to house yourself on only £60k in large parts of the country" - well no, you can't, but you can house yourself in other areas that are commutable.

Without overtime/bonus/out of hours wage top ups (which we don't budget for because while it's been years since he had a month with just his basic wage, he could), DH earns less than that. And no, we couldn't afford to buy a family home in the parts of South East London we'd previously rented in when we came to buy, so like millions of other middle class people, we've moved out of the centre and commute in.

Council housing is subsidised housing and a benefit. Like many non-evil middle class people, i do believe it's right that we sacrifice part of our income in taxes to pay to improve the lifestyles of people much worse off than us. However, I really don't want to have my money taken to support people who are better off than us.

There are families with incomes that are a fraction of that who can't get decent council housing and are struggling in the private sector, because selfish wealthy bastards are holding onto a privilage they don't need.

(And if your wage puts you in the top 10% of incomes in this country, you might not be 'rich' but you can never claim not to be 'wealthy'.)

in the current climate, it would morally be better for a person earning 60k to free uk that house for someone who needs it

however I agree with the op in principle

if there were more social housing properties available then this would be ideal - creating mixed communities

Ever get the feeling you're nutting a brick wall?

Perhaps the person actually holds to the important principle of state housing remaining in the state's hands?

I think that council houses should be rented at the going market rate for the area, with housing benefit being raised to help those who REALLY cannot afford the rent. Having subsidised rents for council property means that some people get more housing benefit than others because of luck rather than need. Lots of working poor people are forced to rent from the private sector as they cannot get a council property. There is a lot of under occupation of council houses and believe that if a granny had to pay full cost of a four bed house then she would be prepared to downside. Increasing housing benefit would make it easier for people to afford a private rental.

I am in favour of people who earn well living on council estates especially if they initally needed social housing. The single mother who works hard and gets a degree through the OU while doing a cleaning job is a positive role model for other people in her area.

Gamerchick I'm confused. If council housing rents are lower than private rents, and maintenance is done by the council, how is that not subsidised by the tax payer? I'm not picking a fight, I'm genuinely confused, because I always thought social housing was subsidised. If it isn't, why do people want it? Why bother to be on a waiting list when private rental is just the same?

Does noone else see this as the beginning of the ghettoisation of social housing which it is?

The ideological work has already been done - most people thinking only people who don't work get social housing - so this doesn't seem at all shocking. You can bet this limit will reduce and reduce until eventually everyone working and earning enough to satisfy the government lives elsewhere. Then the fences can go up...

Meanwhile the governments much loved entrepreneurial landlords can line their pockets while normal earners are trapped into private rental. Give it ten years.

A final point - can anyone explain to me how removing a whole swathe of people who would pay full rent is linked to REDUCING the welfare bill?

Imagine - because it's not run for a profit. Housing associations are run as usually very successful businesses. They have to satisfy criteria from regulation and use private finance as well as some government subsidy to build new properties.

Private landlords charge more not to maintain their property but to make profit. The less available social housing the more they can charge.

Everyone, of all income brackets should be able to choose to rent a council house if they so wish.

The rent is not subsidised, its just let at cost price i.e not to make a profit just enough to cover maintenance etc.

Housing costs that are far too high are the main cause of the difficult economic situation our country is experiencing at the moment.

Problems started with the sell of of council houses by thatcher, but none of the subsequent governments have changed it, so are just as responsible.

Does no one wonder why this is? Do you think they may have benefited somehow from ever increasing house prices? Why is this increase of a basic necessity (roof over your head) seen as a good thing, yet the reverse is true when food or petrol prices go up?

I agree with you rhonda lets keep them all in the one place as they are in need and this is where they should be , I work with people who are struggiling with private landlord rent face eviction from rented property because they work and just cant afford to pay the rent, private rent is ridiculous maybe the landlords should be forced to cap what they can charge people, cant see that happening any time soon though

I would imagine it's linked to welfare as you aren't then paying for people in need to stay in b&bs or pay in over the odds to private landlords.

Tho I'm sure this total is a drop in the ocean.

Council rents are not subsidised. They are lined with the cost of maintaining the houses.. They are not for profit which is what a lot of private landlords like to make.

Our council rents go up 6% every April to keep in line with increases to maintaining the houses. What people seen to fail to see is that this is fair.. its private rents that aren't fair.

And what was said above.. take away those people who don't cost the taxpayer by paying full rent and fill those houses with those on HB which does cost the taxpayer I think hen how is that logical to this subsidised bollocks people keep coming out with?

Also which has already been said.. where is the incentive to get off HB if you rusk losing your home which you probably had to fight to get in the first place? Along with what's he point of caring for your home in he same vein?

It doesn't make any sense.

Xposts

I think at 60k, a person should be renting privately. There should be more social housing but while there isn't, it should be for people who have more need of the lower rent.

so a person/couple who have been given a council house which quite frankly is like hens teeth and they earn 60k between them should just give it up and rent from a landlord who can hike their rent up whenever they like , Really ?