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.

I dont know why anyone who earns 30k or above would be in a council accommodation.
Council accommodation should be used for people on low incomes and benefits not for people on higher incomes to save money.

My concern is that this measure will create a disincentive to work harder, go for a promotion, get a pay rise etc. There is already a problem with higher deprivation among social housing tenants. We don't want to compound this and trap people in low income jobs. Of course a sensible sliding sca
scale might help.

We will fall into this category. We would have to find an extra £600 pcm at least. We currently have about £200 a month left over after all of our bills are paid. I can't work more because there's no childcare for before and after school for my dd. looks like we will be screwed.

Etak, yes most of the people this will hit pay their own rent in full.

George wants that rent to be higher.

The point about social housing is that its purpose is to provide a necessity at as affordable a price as possible. It doesn't need to make a profit, just cover it's own costs. Unlike privately rented housing, the purpose of which is to make as much profit as possible for the owner.

George is making the social housing as expensive as the private, profit-making housing - and taking the difference for himself in central government, not feeding it back into the local authority so they can improve housing provision.

They should just build more houses!! That would solve so many problems.

It's criminal that govt after govt haven't done this.

star no, social housing is supposed to be for all. That was the intention many years ago.
Times have changed, the criteria has had to tighten. Fundamentally though, everyone should be able to leave in a secure rental.
30k is nothing!

Hmm, my head's all over the place with this one.

Firstly, I think it is fair. There's no way I should, because I was on my ass a long long time ago, be entitled to cheap housing for ever, over and above others.

However, my actual response to this is difficult. Our joint earnings are about 33k, mainly thorough self employment. If my husband dropped his employed job, and we both concentrated on the self employed business, we would have 6k lower earnings, but would be under the threshold so would save, I estimate, about 6k in rent. It's a no brainer isn't it? Why would he do the extra job for nowt? But then I don't like the fact that we would be playing the system. We should be attempting to earn and pay in as much as possible.

I don't know how the mortgages for social housing are going to work, I've never looked into it and don't know if we'd be eligible due to the erratic nature of my self employment, but even if we are then I'm not comfortable taking a house out of the system when I know how desperately short it is.

This doesn't make much sense. Unless you qualify for housing benefit you'll pay full rent. If you're in social housing that will be subsidised, based on your financial situation when you qualified. Presumably Georgie means he will review this situation and change yor rent. The only thing is legally many socially rented properties can't be used for market rental, they need to be occupied by those "in need" ie social housing tenants. it's a term of their building subsidy. So not quite sure what he intends.

My concern is that this measure will create a disincentive to work harder, go for a promotion, get a pay rise etc. There is already a problem with higher deprivation among social housing tenants

Not just that, but older children may be discouraged from working. Three people working minimum wage takes you over £30K but I don't think we would consider 2 parents and a 20 year old on min wage wealthy.

Also social housing isn't just about not having money, the property I'm in has been built so that when I become a wheelchair user it will still be suitable, try finding an accessible property that isn't social housing.

I dont know why anyone who earns 30k or above would be in a council accommodation.

Find a single property that is wheelchair accessible for rent, anywhere in the country that is not HA, SH or council.

Also it is household income, not a single person's income.

sashh interesting that you mention disabled access. we live in a disabled access house, there is no way we would be able to privately rent a house that would meet our needs, I doubt if any provision will be made for this is we were in this bracket.

Good point sashh, about older children being discouraged from working, which could undermine policies aimed at keeping younger family members in the family home and not dependent on housing benefit.

No, firstly- I don't think anyone in any property should be made to pay extra just because they've got themselves a good job.

Also, if they are going to charge tenants a market rate does this then mean the council are going to pay the millions needed to modernise, paint and carpet their semi-derelict housing stock to private rental standards? I very much doubt it.

There are very good reasons why council rents are so cheap. It's often not the bargain people think they are.

£30k really isn't a high earner at all. It's another ploy to leave average or low paid working families worse off

No, I don't think it's fair at all. If we need this extra money then we can't cut Inheritance Tax. To me it's as simple as that.

You can't keep telling those at the bottom that they have to shut up and pay up whilst those at the top are getting off scot free.

What a lovely way to discourage the poorer members of society to ever try to better themselves .

What about families where income fluctuates dramatically or household composition changes, so that household income differs from year to year, or even monthly. Would rent have to be constantly adjusted? Sounds like a bit of an administrative nightmare, which could end up costing a lot to implement. I would imagine some tenants might hide income, take cash in hand jobs etc. Especially in London and SE where you would need a very high income to offset the impact of much higher rent.

30k is not a high earner. When I earned 30k I would still have been entitled to tax credits and hb in my social housing flat in London as the 'affordable' rent was not as low as people think.

All this will do is make people out of work better than those in work and therefore encourage people to work less hours for less money, a bit like what happened with tax credits.

So when I'm paying full market rent are the council going to provide ( or pay me back) for the carpets, decorated , white goods posh kitchen and bathrooms and landscaped gardens I could have if I was to private rent ..... No private rental I have ever viewed was just a concrete box with concrete floors , bare plaster walls ,a garden upto your waist , ... What exactly would I be paying the extra for ??

YABU because social housing can cost more than a mortgage.
So if somebody is earning 30K over half of that could go on housing before they start to pay other bills. It sounds like a lot of money, but if you are paying for everything out of that it isn't much.
That's coming from someone whose family income is not much more than half of that.

Yes friz, this policy has the potential to create a number of disincentives to working harder, increasing salary, as well as keeping families together. Its something that looks good on paper, looks like common sense (that the 'better off' should pay higher rents) but may have all kinds of unintended consequences, especially in contexts where market rents are very high.

I guess this will just force more social cleansing, if you happen to have a council house in Peckham, Brixton or central London and you get a promotion then your rent would skyrocket this forcing you out of the area. 30 grand would not be enough to rent privately in a lot of areas in London.
God this government make me sick why don't they just be done with it and sell all social housing and have 15 people sharing a 1 bed flat like the good old days.

It would be incredibly unfair to charge some people more than others for the same thing. YABU.

If we did that, it could only be done on a basis where we accept that social housing tenants are currently getting a very good deal, but most social housing tenants believe that they are paying a fair rent, so it just doesn't work.

SH tenants are either paying a fair rent or they are being subsidised, we can't have it both ways.

Nobody in the SE or London should be in social housing. The economy is buoyant there and anyone without a job should move to a cheaper area as me and my family did. No one needs to live in London/SE who does not work. Social housing should all be sold off or rented out to key workers.

No one should have a right to live in social housing on benefits in the most expensive part of the UK when people who do work in essential services on not very high pay are commuting for hours (eg emergency service workers, medical workers). My sister has lived in London for 25 years, lived in social housing had two children never worked other than minimal amounts cash in hand, exploited right to buy and basically worked the system and made £250k tax free. She had no connection to London just wanted to live there.

Social housing in London/SE uses up housing space that drives up the level of rents for people who do work by creating an artificial shortage.

Council house waiting lists are only long because it is cheaper than renting in the private sector. If council houses were at market rate waiting lists would disappear. Social housing should be in low cost areas and only for people in real need and on a temporary bass.

That said NMW should rise to £10/hr and the law enforced rigorously including outlawing of unstable zero hours, unpaid overtime and 'self employed' contracts'. Get rid of in work benefits to force employers to pay living wages that are not subsidised by Govt via Tax Credits and social housing.

£30k isn't a lot? I earn £9k pa, topped up to £20k with tax credits and child benefit. I manage OK (mortgage, from when ExH and I were together), but no, I don't live in the SE. My house costs £1k per month to run with all bills and everything else is spent on food, clothes, diesel etc. Anything left is shovelled into savings to pay for emergencies, repairs etc.
We manage fine but £30k would be lovely.

Wow, ban all unemployed people from London? Why did no one think of this sooner, what an amazingly simple and effective idea.