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.

Agree with you purple I'm in Scotland where housing costs are very different.

How about a time limit for council housing?

You can have 1 max 5 years if no children.

N 10 years if have children.

Council houses are for when in need and people shouldn't be in need for their lifetime.

They should immediately stop the right to buy scheme discounts. If people really want the house then they should at least have to pay full market value. Under the current scheme too many people have exercised their right to buy and got the house at a significant discount and then sold it on five years later to a greedy landlord who charges rent twice that which the local authority charges on the house next door.
Rents should be higher if people are earning a significant amount. I think it wold make sense to increase the rents to within 10% of the local private rental market. Charging more would mean that the councils would collect more revenue from those who are not financially needy and use that money towards the costs of housing benefit payments thus cutting the welfare bill. I don't think people should be evicted just because they now earn lots but I also don't feel that they need to benefit from much lower than market rental prices.
I think the policies should apply to people of all ages.
People should be able to stay in their council house for as long as they are prepared to pay for it.

Does noone understand the point of secure tenancies any more.

I keep thinking ill wake up one morning soon to Charles dickens publishing a new book ( cos I must be in a time warp)

most people if they are earning well are established in their council houses some will want to move some wont or cant they should not be made or forced to move anywhere if they have a family ,

I would favour council accomodiation being charged at market rate then someone being given housing benefit IF they need the help.

So atm council housing basically breaks even - it's not subsidised but it's not expected to make a profit. You'd change this so rents were raised but more housing benefit would be paid out - so essentially, you'd change to a system of subsidy, except the subsidy would be paid from the income tax pot rather than the council tax pot?

The problem with moving people like that is that they have established jobs, schools, support systems for childcare, transportation. Move them, and they may lose jobs due to struggle with childcare or transportation, or then be paying MORE for transportation or childcare and they may be much much worse off and end up losing that private rental. Then they're without a home at all, and back at the bottom of the council list, waiting years. All because they hit a certain income plateau.

I live in rural Yorkshire and although DH earns just over 50k if we bought now in this area we'd have a choice of some pretty miserable looking 3 bed houses...so we rent a gorgeous spacious 5 bed house instead. It's insane that although our household income is (relatively speaking) twice what my parents earned at this stage in their lives, we couldn't even raise a mortgage to cover the modest house they had. And we both have degrees, which they didn't, so should be in a better position theoretically.

A lot of responses on here highlight a big issue we face currently. Instead of standing up to our politicians and demanding something is done about businesses paying a fair wage, and their damn taxes (which would sort out the debt issue in this country overnight) we turn on one another instead and make judgements about each others morals. The problem, all of the problems where money is central in the uk are because of the waybigbusiness is allowed to run...or rather the way they now run us. The governments no longer have the power to govern the UK.

I absolutely agree though that RTB should be stopped. That way if people want to get a mortgage they have to go to the market instead of taking a council house out of stock.

"Council houses ARE NOT SUBSIDISED"

Ok.. lets explain it VERY slowly...

A landlord owns a maisonette A in a council block and rents it out for £750 per month. The council owns an identical maisonette B and rents it out for £400 to a social tenant. The council tenant pays £350 less than the private tenant for exactly the same size propety in the same area. Both the private landlord and the council pay the same for maintaince work.

The private landlord cannot reduce the rent because he has to pay a mortgage. If you force the private landlord to lower the rent then he will simply sell the propety as he will not be able to cover the rent. This will drastically reduce the amount of rental property available and choice for tenants. Many tenants want the flexiblity of renting even if they have a good income. (for example immigrants on a short term contract.)

At the moment there is not enough social housing for those who need. Surely we need to make best use of what social housing we have and help those who are on a low income who have to rent privately.

Rents raised in line with household income until it reaches near local private prices. Rents kept at current levels for those with low household incomes.
Therefore: household A earns £60k and their rent is increased from £320pm to £600pm as the local private houses of similar size rent for £650pm.
Household B earns £15k so their rent remains at £320pm.

The council doesn't have any more overheads than before but they can generate more rental income from the financially better off households which can be used to offset some of the cost of the housing benefit bill.

If you make it financially impossible for small landlords to rent property then you will only be left with the Wilsons

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants

or worse still

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstraten Nicholas van Hoogstraten]]

Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Surely you don't want either of THEM as landlords!

I'm sure most private landlords only make around 6% profit each year, which can be easily wiped out by repairs and tenants who stop paying their rent. Obviously they have the house as an asset when the mortgage is paid off but the also have the hassle of any problem tenants.
I wouldn't be a landlord and even those that enjoy it would stop doing it if they had to reduce rents to levels which only allow them to break even or make a loss.

It's not about it being noooooot faaaaaair. It's about people who can afford to live elsewhere doing so so the people who can't afford to barely live at all can cope. 60k is a random number anyway. In some areas it should be a lot lower than that. I like the idea of social housing being seen as a stop gap rather than a lifetime place to live. But then at the same time I can see the other point of view that why would you try to earn more if you lose your house to do it. It's all just a bag of shit for everyone the way it is now.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many are making 60K and still living in council property. I wouldn't think the numbers are very high.

"'m sure most private landlords only make around 6% profit each year, which can be easily wiped out by repairs and tenants who stop paying their rent"

Prehaps a rental property generates 6% as YIELD but that is not the same as profit. From that 6% a landlord has to pay maintance, mortgage interest, letting agent fees and accountancy fees. Any residal income is also taxed.

I find it awful that a family with 3 children in a one bed flat can be stuck in a one bed flat because of high rents. They can't get a council property as they are not homeless, but cannot afford a bigger property on the private market.

But then at the same time I can see the other point of view that why would you try to earn more if you lose your house to do it.

Which is why it makes more sense to let them stay in the house as long as they wish but pay rents closer to the local private rentals if they have sufficient income to do so.
We could also have the argument that people get less tax credits when they start earning more so why would they be incentivised to earn more, but people are because some people like to only take what they need when they need it.

Yes really tired - that was what I was trying to say, but didn't say it very well. I don't think that most landlords make much profit at all whilst they have a mortgage to pay. I know a lot of landlords who have lost thousands and thousands of pounds as the rent covers day to day overheads of owning the house, but doesn't cover big repairs, wilful damage, legal costs involved in evicting bad tenants, unpaid rent etc. that 6% isn't really a profit at all.

Not for profit,is not the same as subsidised.

Interestingly on any other subject on MN someone whose low income (low enough to qualify for ctc) is talked about as if their income is not much different to those earning 60k.

It's amusing that as soon as we talk about not for profit housing then all of a sudden the same names decide that it's very different.

ReallyTired.....or you could give private landlord the choice to a) lower rent to same as council owned property b) offer to buy property off landlord to add to council stock. the initial outlay of this being offset by reduced welfare spending on housing benefit that would have bee paid to future tenant(s).

Eventually as council housing stock increases, everyone who wants one can have a secure tenancy. Only committed private landlords, not in it for a fast buck remain. It also has a knock on effect, lowering the cost to buy a house.

Everyone now has greater choice over whether they rent or buy a house. no one is in a vulnerable position solely due to not being able to afford somewhere to live. National happiness increases. Less need to pay housing benefit to low earners paying high private rents. Welfare bill decreases.

With lower housing costs, people can manage to live on lower wages. Government no longer needs to subsidise employers with in-work benefits (tax credits) Decreased welfare spending.

Families have a choice about whether one parent being a SAHP while children are young. Less spending on childcare, less need for tax credit top ups. Lower welfare spending and increased national happiness.

Finally, lower housing costs means higher disposable incomes. Increased spending boosts economy.

What subjects on MN do people compare their lower incomes to 60k and talk as if they aren't much different? (Not a sarcastic question, genuine!)

These type of threads always make me at what people think is a low or high income because it seems to vary so much.

As someone who grew up on a council estate and mum still lives there I've seen how it has changed over the years. In the early years almost everyone worked and rented from the council- it was a lovely estate, well maintained and with a stable and proud population. it is a much more troubled area now (many properties were bought then sold and are now short lets) and it is a mess, run down with many chaotic families. I think it's hugely important to encourage stability and a secure tenancy in council owned areas. This encourages people to take pride in their homes it's important for young people to grow up in an area where people are working and hopeful.

...and demanding something is done about businesses paying a fair wage, and their damn taxes (which would sort out the debt issue in this country overnight)

No it wouldn't. Even if the govt raised the minimum wage to the much trumpeted 'living wage', the actual amount of tax that would raise is pretty negligible.

Even if you doubled corporation tax and could ensure no business flees to another EU state (let alone outside the EU) then even that wouldn't cover the deficit, let alone the debt.

2012-2013 corporation tax raised just under £40 billion (source) Our deficit after 3.5 years of cuts is still £100 billion. Our actual debt is over £1 trillion.

Sorry but the fanciful notion that a wave of the legislative wand to make someone else pay off our debts simply isn't realistic.

If you limit council estates to the most 'needy' -which by the definition councils use are likely to be low/non earners, and then keep those estates unstable by moving people off when they do well financially, you run a high risk of ghetto-ising those areas and creating estates full of people with low aspiration. Look at the projects in the US for an example of what not to do. Even in this country there are no-go areas and we all know full well London is the only place likely to have earners of £60k in council housing. Lets create more no-go estates in London, what a good idea.