to think it is fair enough that High earners, earning £30000 pa have to pay market rates for social housing.

[NoahVale]

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/04/david-cameron-ally-rohan-silva-firms-must-be-forced-raise-low-pay

I spose there has to be a cut off somewhere, and I spose it helps that I dont earn £30,000,
no doubt if it was just in the bracket I might feel a bit peeved.

So i can see the argument that the pp's grandparents who have lived there say 60 yrs should not have to move out just because they are now being 'subsidised'.

they are not being 'subsidised'. they are being subsidised.

Have been reading up on this today .

Apparently the top up payment for anyone over £30k will be on average around £70 per week .

We are £2k over the threshold .

So that's me going part time then . I won't earn enough to pay tax on reduced hours and my childcare bill will half so actually we will be better off for doing less . The exact mindset I thought the Tories where trying to get rid off .

So much for trying to better ourselves

The problem with building more houses isn't the expense but the constant difficulty with planning and land availability. The government could change this obviously

£10bn is paid every year to private landlords through housing benefit - how can that be a good thing? Private landlords do not build houses - how much social housing could be built every year with £10bn?

£10bn is paid every year to private landlords through housing benefit - how can that be a good thing? Private landlords do not build houses - how much social housing could be built every year with £10bn?

Indeed. I said cut it off.

private landlords and developers build private housing. and could do it faster if planning permission wasn't so restrictive.

Under the CONSERVATIVE governments of the 1950s around three million council houses were built! How come we managed it then but can't do it now? The country was still on its knees after the WWII and had huge financial problems but they still built millions of homes, creating thousands and thousands of jobs and improving the lives of millions of people.

We need more social housing not more stigmatisation and envy of those living in it.

That's what happens when you vote for Christmas wheretheresawill1

the private sector cannot provide enough houses on its own - it never has done and it never will. Neither can the public sector - we need more properties of all types and all tenures.

the private sector cannot provide enough houses on its own - it never has done and it never will. Neither can the public sector - we need more properties of all types and all tenures.

that's what I said.

the envy over social housing is because of its favourable tenancies. we should extend that to the private sector. that will, in effect, push the burden of housing benefit onto landlords.

Does anyone know if this will affect families who have disabilities who aren't affected (yet) by the benefits cap to 23'000 but get the 30'000 If they included all benefits like housing benefit,council tax benefit ,dla etc?

If this was the case I'm wondering how extortionate the market rent they would estimate the market rent to be

sorry posted too soon , I mean the market rent for specially adapted properties

The manifesto on which the Tories fought the 1951 election stated:

Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by crowded houses. Therefore, a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defence.

...

it makes me weep so many young people today have no hope of either buying their own home or renting in a secure tenancy at an affordable rate. What a sad, uncaring society we have become.

I'm surprised you found a manifesto of theirs that far back, they tried to get rid of all evidence of their promises they had broken from 2011 off their own website.

10 years ago plans were put forward to build 100 HA homes/ retirement bungalows on the outskirts of my village.

They were much needed homes. Out of roughly 3000ish houses only 20 are council/HA. New buyers cannot afford to buy, families are stuck in private rents and out of all of those HA houses only 3 have children. The rest are pensioners.

Everybody objected! It was a case of not in my village. The homes were never built.

The pensioners in the houses have nowhere to go so they rattle around in their 3 bed homes. Families are stuck in overpriced private lets.

As soon as a cheapish house goes up for sale the btlers pounce on it. It's not bloody right.

I do laugh at people who say that the poor needing housing benefit should not live in London. The same people would soon be squealing if they had nobody to serve their coffee, clean the wards in hospitals etc.

Its the typical short sighted Tory response to this argument. Move the poor out of London/expensive areas.

Yeah cos that will solve everything won't it?

Toofat I will stop working all together if this happens. As it is I only earn £350 a month. If we then have to pay an extra £280 rent what's the point?

People can't afford to live in London or greater London, so they move to the Home Counties. I have lived in an undesirable town for 25 years. Over recent years, the cost of housing has pushed people out of London and into my area. Subsequently the cost of housing is just laughable for a shitty commuter town and you'll pay 8 grand per year for the privilege of being a sardine on a train that's at least 20 mins late.

This is another typical ill-thought out policy. With tax credits we will be about £1000 over the £30k threshold - with one child still at home in 2017 we will probably get just over £2k a year, so I'll just stop claiming them and we'll be better off than if we have to find nearly another £4k for rent top up. Mind you, that's probably what this Tory government want anyway. I was going to up my hours at work from 30 to full time, but there doesn't seem much point really if it will result in a net loss to my family.

marking place

I do laugh at people who say that the poor needing housing benefit should not live in London. The same people would soon be squealing if they had nobody to serve their coffee, clean the wards in hospitals etc.

I do laugh at people who think all cafes in London will close if housing benefit is reduced.

A few things. First, it's not "the poor" that require housing benefit in London. A huge portion of the population gets it (so far more than the poor). Second, I don't want the poor to leave London; I just don't want a huge portion of our budget paying to house them in the most expensive part of the EU. I want people to stay in London and the way to do that is build more homes, not more housing benefit.

If tax credits/carers allowance/dla are included then we will be slightly over the threshold. If so Dh has said he will just reduce his hours in accordance to avoid us having to pay out more rent

I do laugh at people who say that the poor needing housing benefit should not live in London. The same people would soon be squealing if they had nobody to serve their coffee, clean the wards in hospitals etc.

If that happened, what would be the result. With hospitals shutting and no one to serve food in restaurants or to sell ice cream in theatres, or clean the streets etc, London would very quickly become an undesirable place to live. Businesses would relocate as they wouldn't be able to attract staff, so very soon property prices would fall. Then people would start to move back. The free market will sort it out.

In reality, in order to keep staff, they'd have to be paid more, with the end consumer paying more for their meal or whatever, so a natural form of wealth distribution.

I've decided I would drop a couple of hours if this was the case so my salary drops from 33k to 29999