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.

I think that any subsidy for housing costs needs to be tapered just like working tax credit is. I feel an allowance for housing should be paid to ANYONE on a low income whether they live in private or council. I would like council and housing association rent to match the market rate. The increased revenue could pay for a sensible level of housing benefit.

Housing benefit does not increase rents in the private rental market as most landlords will not take tenants on housing benefit. We need to find a way of encouraging movement within the housing market. In the private secotor people often volunarily downside when they get older.

Naively I had no idea that it was possible to rent a council house if you earned that sort of money. I really think that you should be renting privately if you can afford it. We earn less than half that but are "lucky" enough to own our house/have a mortgage because we saved for a deposit back in the olden days. Our son lives in London and is on a very low income/high transport costs but private rents. Would it be possible for him to get a council flat or is it very difficult? I work in a school and a lot of my younger colleagues who earn massively less than £60k all private rent because they haven't managed or don't want to save up for a deposit.

I just do feel that if we built (or indeed bought) a massive increase in council housing, we could stop paying HB entirely. There would be enough government owned property to house all those in need of decent rented accommodation at a fair price with a stable tenancy. The private rental market could become more like private health and schools- something you can choose to pay for if you want to. And cutting out HB would also reduce the BTL sector in those parts where it deserves to be reduced- the not-very-nice LL who abuses vulnerable tenants on high levels of benefits who have little other choice.

Beastofburden that's a great way to look at it. Imagine if there was only enough state school places for 1 in every 5 children in the UK. The other 80% had to pay to privately educate their children (no choice as its compulsory) would those parents be happy to say "ah well, its market forces, supply and demand, you know" Or should all children be entitled to a free education? Should all people be entitled to an affordable, secure place to live also? what's the difference?

I'm a money grabbing private LL according to mumsnet.

Im so money grabbing that despite having owned but to let properties for 4 years, I've yet to break even on them. This is with a purchase price of £118,000 at the bottom of the market and a retal income of £700pcm. I've had the usual costs of owning properties and my LL legal requirements in addition to renovation and improvement if them over the years. Sounds like a right little gold mine on paper though doesn't it? Not quite the reality though.

My profit will come from when I sell them on for my retirement.

CaisleanDraiochta
" Or should all children be entitled to a free education? Should all people be entitled to an affordable, secure place to live also? what's the difference?"

It is silly comparing housing to education. What is a fundermental right and what is nice. For example its it a right to live in a particular area of town or near the station or have a garden? With private rental you get more choice where you live and what amentities your property has.

There are plenty of people who want medium term rentals for one reason or another.

Prehaps the question is how we best help those who really cannot afford housing.

"my mil had a council house that she bought for 28k years ago under the right to buy She saw it as her own personal bank account, she remortgaged it it several times until she was forced to sell it but she still walked away with over £10,000 "

Her position is no different to someone who has been repossed. I imagine that she stood little chance of getting a private rental because of a poor credit rating. Even idiots deserve a roof over her head. It stinks that someone who doesn't make stuipd financial decisions has to pay the market price to rent a flat and your MIL gets subsidised housing.

Schools and housing are not really comparable because social housing was never intended to provide a home for every single person and even in the early days a tenancy could be revoked if the tenants fell below the expected standard. If a child is excluded from school then the local authority has to find an alternative school / place of appropriate education.
Every child is entitled to a full time state education as has been the case since the education act 1944. There is no similar statutory law for providing every family with a local authority home.
Schools and the NHS are unique in that every British citizen is entitled to use them without charge at the point of use. Housing is charged for at the point of use (although at lesser rents than similar private homes usually).
You don't pay your rent or look after the house and you get evicted.
Comparing council houses with school places is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Well, I wouldn't want to extend this quite as far as having everyone housed by the state, like communist china. But as buying a house becomes so unaffordable, I think that there has to be more control over renting. I just get annoyed when I see HB being paid out to those LL who, unlike joysmum, don't do the right thing by their tenants.

Lots of tenants don't do the right thing by their landlords either. There are good and bad landlords and good and bad tenants.

Selling off council houses does make economic sense when you include the cost of up keeping old homes.

It is when you don't rebuild with the money received that issues happen.

No they are not comparable as things stand, but don't you think it would be better if they were? Don't you think having somewhere to live should be a basic entitlement? which would you prefer for you child if it really came down to it-

a) a roof over their head but no school place
b) goes to school every day but is homeless

why is education seen as more important than housing in our society?

It's very true that if you want to live in a bigger, better house and can afford it, you should be able to pay for this. Just the same as if you want a 'better' education for your child there is a choice to pay for it, if you are able and so wish.

But if you can't afford private education, there is the back up of a guaranteed state school place for every child. why isn't there a guaranteed basic state accommodation for them also.

I think the answer is that at some point housing became seen as a commodity instead of a necessity. Therein the problem lies. JMOO.

"It is when you don't rebuild with the money received that issues happen"

There is no land to build new homes on.

The problem with gettos of council housing is that end up with more crime and the local schools turn into utter shitholes that belong in special measures.

"But if you can't afford private education, there is the back up of a guaranteed state school place for every child. why isn't there a guaranteed basic state accommodation for them also."

We have housing benefit to help parents house their children if they are on a low income as well as limited social housing. The problem with social housing is that the subsidy is not always aimed at those who need it. Someone on 60K does not cheap/ subsidised council housing, but its mean to force them to move. Let your 60K family remain in their council house, but charge them private level rent.

"The private rental market could become more like private health and schools- something you can choose to pay for if you want to."

Agree completely, beastofburden. In fact, it used to be more like this. Council estates were hardly seen as prestige addresses, and those to whom such things mattered and who had the money simply chose elsewhere.

And it seems ReallyTired also agrees with you, saying the function of private rental is to give more choice and niceness.

There is plenty of land to build on! Very little of Britain is built on!

beastofburden - since you changed the words you used to describe your position on this issue and explained yourself more clearly, I agree with nearly all you have said.

beastofburden
"But profPlum, that just chases money round the system. if I pay open market rent, the government has to then reuse it to fund housing benefit for a low income family who are being charged open market rent. Money gets spent on admin, plus the system doesnt offer the lower paid family any security."

I think we largely agree: I am very much FOR subsidised housing for low income families - I don't think any low income family should be paying market rent. It's the high income families that I believe should be asked for open market rent, and the extra money then flowing into the council should be used to help those actually in need of a helping hand.

Reallytired I agree with everything you say.

It sounds as if we do all largely agree. I also am not sure that more council housing ought to be described as creating a ghetto with social problems concentrated in one place. Firstly, many families on lower incomes don't create any social problems at all. Secondly, with housing costing what it does, the range of people who might prefer to rent public housing stock would I think be pretty wide.

Building more- yes, that's a problem in some parts of the country. But many places, developers have to create up to 50% affordable housing in new developments. Affordable is still expensive for individuals, but I would think councils could instead buy some of that affordable housing to replenish their stock.

In fact, it used to be more like this. Council estates were hardly seen as prestige addresses, and those to whom such things mattered and who had the money simply chose elsewhere.

See, maybe in cities it was like this. But in small towns, it was the council which housed people. You got engaged, you went on the waiting list for your CH, you moved into your CH, you lived there for ever. I am only talking as far back as my mother's generation here. My GPs lived in a council house, my mother ditto but she bought hers.

Then RTB came along and made everyone a home-owner, which fuelled the big housing estates in small towns like my home-town. Once you'd owned your ex-council house, you wanted to trade up to a bigger, nicer house. (Most of which are stuck in negative equity now btw.)

I know it's frustrating when people hark back to the past so I will make this my last time - RTB fucked up a perfectly workable system!

It's not their fault supply of council housing has failed to keep up with demand.

We need to stop blaming policy failures on individuals, unless they are the individuals making the policies.

Never mind your mother, wilson, my best friend from school did exactly that. Got a council house when she was about 21, loved there for years. Did eventually buy it and get something bigger, but then she had six kids

(Btw I mean, never mind you mother, meaning, it isn't just the older generation, it's still happening. Sorry if that wasn't clear :) )

I don't think it's right that people earning over £60,000 per year should be in council housing. Why can't they buy their own house and let more needy people have the house.