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 am copying this post for another thread; The main reason that council/ HA tenants pay less is that the homes are paid for many times over by generations of families. THerefore, no need for overinflated market rents.

30,000 is not much to live on.

If more private rents were longer term and not all short lets, maybe people would be more willing to privately rent.

£30k is absolutely not rich, in London it would leave you very tight, £11k minimum wage is insultingly low and why we need tax credits.

Talkinpeace you are so right.

You can't defend the indefebsible, but defend they will.

I don't think earning 30k a year makes you rich.

The only answer is to build more housing. We need to double what we build and I don't understand why we are not doing so.

People need a roof over their head and there needs to be a fair way of doing this.

If you are a high earner in social housing then paying market rent won't do anything except make you worse off. In some cases this will mean leaving a secure tenancy for a non secure one. Not great us it?

Personally I'd prefer to see tenancies renewed on a 10 year basis and needs reassessed. That way if you are living alone in a four bed house you can be offered a smaller property (with help to move). This would free up larger homes for waiting families.

What's a token amount anyway?

Between myself and my wife we might just about earn £30k a year, that's not much at all and I certainly don't consider us high earners. If the rent went up to market rate we'd be screwed.

It's a tough one but I do think fundamentally it isn't right that those on above average household incomes can get a subsidised property at a time when there is such pressure for those properties
We private rented for ages and it was hard to come to terms with the fact that friends on similar income were paying half the rent for their identical property because they had at some point qualified to get it

mrsruffallo every property still has an ongoing maintenance cost, this needs constant resources. It's also not just the costs you may expect, new windows, roofers, boilers etc..etc. Its costs such as housing officers, rent officers, energy advisors, disable adaptions etc. These are all constant costs, some rents are token in relation to the true costs of some properties.

If 30k is not much to live on, then a pen, paper, calculator and a crash course in budgeting is needed!

(As in half the rent we were paying)

So what is a token amount?

The extra money isn't going to the councils.. It's going to the government so not much changing there. It'll still be a 'token' amount whatever that is.

We'll be buggered if this comes in. I'm a sahm, isn't worth working with cc costs. Dh earns just over 30k.

We barely scrape by, can't afford holidays etc.

It's utterly shit they are doing this instead of tackling tax avoidance by the very rich. Etc.

I suppose I understand. The government lost their cut of the surplus money generated by social housing a while ago, it was just a matter of time before they found a way to get it back.

Not one person that I have seen is saying that 30k is rich! I certainly don't feel rich on a smiliar household income! But I do know that adjustments could be made if I needed to, We don't / try not to live beyond our means.

People can get mortgages on less then 30k, it's not a shabby income!

Only if they have a massive deposit Storm.

Storm mortgage on 30k?! Honestly? Maybe for a studio flat somewhere up north.

Storm I budget very well. I have spreadsheets and everything still wouldn't be able to afford an extra £600 pcm for rent. I could if I worked more but with NO childcare provision where we are it is not possible (that's another story though!).

If the surplus was going to build or improve social housing I would get it...if the quality of provision was the same. But won't be! The money will be siphoned off and the lower end of the earning scale will be affected while IHT gets cut.

It's all about making SH tenants the bad guys again. It's all their fault that the country is fucked.

HA rents go up twice yearly (mine does) to bring them in line with the private sector. Or so we are told. Who's going to pay for all tenants to be means tested? What about people on agency contracts whose wages can fluctuate dramatically?

"What about people on agency contracts whose wages can fluctuate dramatically?"

Yeah there's a lot of people these days on temporary agency contracts and similar due to firms no longer wanting full time staff anymore; makes employees disposable and easy to get rid of at drop of a hat.

Some people do quite like temp work though.

I am almost positive that you won't be expected to pay an additional £600pcm on top of your rent now Spotty. I expect an average in areas will be applied, I doubt you will be charged the same as the local highest private rents. It will instead be what they, the Gov determine as the market rent. I really can't see them knocking your door for an additional £600!

Won't this just increase the number of people claiming housing benefit?