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.

Depends Noah.

The difference between our council flat and an equivalent sized private rent is averagely £728 per month.

I'm a SHAM anyway so this doesn't apply, but hypothetically speaking if I was working a NMW job I'd give it up tomorrow rather than pay an extra £728 rent per month for this craphole.

motherofdragons I guess people see it without the tax credits/ cb and reasonably low mortgage.

So if you were renting and paying 1000 a month with no tax credits etc then you would be 600 a month worse off, potentially. Probably that would knock the riding lessons on the head and would be really hard.

In answer to the op, it provides an inverse incentive to make people try to stay under the threshold. That isn't a good thing in relation to supporting 'strivers'

Mother some people's RENT is more than your mortgage. Others have debts to pay off...I assume you don't? We got a council flat because there's not a real shortage in this area. People don't want flats...they want houses.

what ghosty said.

This will go the way of child benefit. No one will defend 'higher earners' (and at 30k, that term is seriously suspect) and before you know it everyone will be subject to further cuts and the whole concept of affordable housing will disappear.

Wouldn't be surprised to see workhouses back one day!

Motherofdragons easily. I've just totted up our costs
Mortgage- £950
Insurances- £100
Car loan- £375
Commuting costs - £500
Food-£300
TV- £100
Phones -£60
Water -£30
Gas and electric- £75
Credit card- £100
Council tax- £150
Nursery- £1040
Petrol- £50

£3k take home needed (about £60k PA?) and that's with No spending money, one offs, holidays, birthdays, Christmas or savings

Take off the non essentials- loans and tv and it's still £2,400, about £50k take home? That's 2 adults and a child.

Ah right raveismyera yes it is challenging at times. I am going back to retrain in Sept so things should get easier when we have two wages coming in.
motherofdragons I find that amazing. My mortgage is less than yours and wage a bit higher than 30K but we save all year for a caravan holiday in UK and only have one car. 4 of my children are teenagers though, one with uni fees, are yours younger?. In this bracket we are expected to contribute quite a bit for uni. Also the cost of 4 mobiles etc. Food shopping also is a fortune and we are paying off some debts and loan. We rarely have take aways or go out or buy clothes etc.

Mother - £40k, assuming that's 2 people's earnings with two tax free allowances etc - about £2800 a month net.

So after your £650 mortgage and £850 savings, you have £1300 left.

For food and household, clothing, c tax, TV licence, gas, electric, water, home and 2 x car insurances, petrol, mot, not to mention phones/ Internet (which I'm assuming you have).

That lot costs me around £1000 a month, which are pretty average bills really...assuming yours are the same ish you'd have £300 a month left...and that's not even including the extras like the odd takeaway, kids school lunches and trips, any sort of event/birthday/Christmas etc.

I'm by no means saying you're on the breadline and I know MN is the mythical land where you can feed a family of 6 for a week on one chicken...but I struggle to see how your figures add up and you can afford horse riding lessons and trips abroad with no problem. Your figures don't add up to me.

I know someone who lives in a gorgeous housing association flat, on a protected rent. He earns 50k.

I have always felt that he is blocking someone on a low income from living in that flat, someone who is paying market private rent but on say 20k.

It seems wrong to me that he has loads of disposable income to go on lots of holidays, meals out, lots of gadgets etc because he pays such a low rent. I just don't think that should be what social housing is for. He could easily afford private rent, but would have fewer holidays and a lower standard of living. But if someone on a lower income was in his flat, they would have a better standard of living.

They also may not need a housing benefit top up which they may get in private rented accommodation.

I loathe the Tories but I think this policy is fair.

Yes I think people over 30 K or less will lose everything eventually. Child Benefit and CTC etc. But they may well end up worse off than someone getting cheaper rent and tax credits that earns less. And they will probably not vote Tory again if they did this time (I didn't).

I don't mind this idea, but I live in social housing and we have a household income of far less than that. Even DP getting a promotion would not raise us above it. Me passing my degree though................................

Never mind, it is not greatly cheaper to live here than it would be to private rent, another £200 a month on the full rent we already pay.

That's pretty scary. Me and OH have an income of 26000 with him full time me on 15 hours a week.. It essentially means we can not afford for me to go back to work full time because our £400 a month rent will nearly double to £750!!!

Can anyone look at my post and tell me, judging by that if it really is a fair policy? for those who earn over 50-60k, maybe, but 30k?! 30k after tax is around 23/24k, Hardly rolling in it! after tax we only see 30k anyway and thats enough of a struggle!

A lot of the comments on this thread suggest that people want a race to the bottom and I find that really sad.

Surely if you believe there unfairness you should be asking for everyone to be in the better off bracket (using rent controls would ensure this) rather making people worse off?

On a separate note don't the majority of people in SH have protected tenancies that have acceptable rent increases written into them? How are the government proposing to get around this?

Only just read this but MoreBeta caught my eye...

*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.*

You do realise that your sister is only one person in social housing in London don't you? It's ulikely to be a representative figure.

Also there are many people in London that probably wouldn't be described as 'key workers' but are still, IMHO, essential workers but are on low pay. Examples are cleaners, care assistants, binmen, porters, kitchen assistants etc etc. No way would they be able to afford market rents or get a mortgage in London. Yes they could move out and commute in, but seriously, would you commute from Luton (or somewhere) into Central London for a minimum wage job? There needs to be affordable housing for these people. In a utopian society, councils/HA would provide accommodation.

I can understand, in a way, the view that social housing should only be for those who can't afford open market rents. However, they were initally planned to be ''homes for life''. I also think that if social housing had a full mix of people living there, there wouldn't be such a snobbery about social housing as there is.

And (I'm not addressing MoreBeta here) but £30k is rich? Seriously? I'm on about £37k (I'm a nurse) and while I'm not poor, I'm certainly not rich!

I think there are some interesting points on this thread. If 70% of the population really do earn £30k or less the then it's clear people on that salary can afford to either rent privately or buy, because most already are.

No raveismyera, it really doesn't at all. For two reasons. The first is that a lot of those renting privately on under 30k will be getting some HB. The second is that of those who own homes, a large number of them purchased when housing was much, much cheaper. Both in real terms and relative to income. There are loads of MNers who own homes purchased a decade or two back who freely admit they couldn't afford to get on the ladder now. And this is an incredibly important point: purchasing a modest home in a less popular area used to be within the grasp of a couple who were earning 2 x 15k or equivalent adjusted for the inflation that's occurred. Absolutely. It increasingly isn't now.

And for those of you who think people aren't going to be incentivised to work less in order to avoid this, how much glue did you sniff today? Seriously! I and a lot of my family are SH and we've all been talking about it this morning and how it will affect decisions about work. Examples:

• I'm on ML, DH earns just shy of 30k. I'm going back, will clear a couple of hundred quid a month after childcare for two so it's viable. I still will, because going back will lead to a greater salary in the long run, and that will be worth it even with the increased rent assuming this doesn't push us to buy. But if that weren't the case, I just wouldn't bother. This would also mean we could claim a small amount in tax credits, thus costing HMRC even more, although even if we didn't get them it would still probably be financially worthwhile for me to SAH to save on the rent.

• My cousin works PT as a nursery nurse and had been considering going FT when her one and only starts school soon. That would push their household income over 30k, so she's not going to do it. She'll be staying under the NI and income tax threshold instead. They don't get any TCs, only CB, which would be worth less to them than the value of the rent increase anyway, so there is nothing the benefit system could even do to give them a nudge.

• My aunt, uncle and adult son have a household income of about 35k between them. The eagle eyed amongst you will see that's not much more than NMW each. Considerably lower than living wage. She's had the house since Noah were a lad, so will get it cheap as chips if she does RTB. Which she's now incentivised to do, as the mortgage would be considerably cheaper than the rent. I agree with PPs that this is probably intentional on GO's part.

And these are just the conversations I had this morning. So people can have whatever feelz they like about this, but it's how it is. Even in an area where the 'market rent' (not that market rent really exists in this warped housing market) isn't a great deal higher than SH- couple of hundred a month tops. You can multiply this by a million in London and the south east.

Yes, essential workers on low pay need somewhere to live near London. Whose going to sweep the streets, clean offices, serve the coffees etc. all low paid jobs.
Already a lot of low earners have been driven out from London (and their jobs) and had to 'relocate' to areas with lower rents and usually less work available.

Agree wholeheartedly with Muff. In areas with high private rental costs especially, people will alter work/economic behaviour accordingly to stay under whatever the threshold is. Its no good arguing, as some do, that they should better themselves regardless. Most human beings will behave in economically rational ways and if they stand to lose out by working more, they will scale back their efforts.

MuffMuffTweetAndDave whilst I agree with your points I think they are contradictory- if it's so hard to buy why will it be so easy to exercise your families right to buy? They are still based on market prices. I.e my friend tried to exercise hers a whole ago- lovely big discount, about £50k. Her house was valued at £450k meaning there was no way she could get the mortgage for the remainder even after the discount. If prices are too high your uncle and aunt have no chance of buying theirs.

"Also there are many people in London that probably wouldn't be described as 'key workers' but are still, IMHO, essential workers but are on low pay. Examples are cleaners, care assistants, binmen, porters, kitchen assistants etc etc. No way would they be able to afford market rents or get a mortgage in London."

A few years back there was a big thing in London about having affordable housing for so-called 'keyworkers'. Apparently what they actually meant though were doctors and skilled workers on a considerably higher salary than the people who sweep our streets and care for the elderly/sick.

So yes, it seems that cleaners and kitchen assistants don't count for anything anymore.

I haven't read the whole thread but can see people saying 30k isn't a high wage? it might no be high compared to those earning in the highest tax bracket but it's certsinly high enough to have a good quality of life

I'm also confused as to why someone earning that amount should be allowed to live in social housing (or am I missing something here). Surely as social housing is in crisis and people are desperate for homes, should these houses no be used for them? Thise on NMW, unemployed looking for work, thise recieving disability benifit etc?

I earned a lot less than 30k, still do but I have a DP now. When I was single I lived quite comfortably on that and managed to save enough for a deposit on a flat while renting privately, I'm

It's not exactly a high income. But people will get more than £30,000 in benefits. But I don't expect that will count. So if you are self supporting then you will lose out. But I agree in principle that Council Houses aren't for high earners. They can buy or rent privately.

Rave, most people don't have the opportunity of buying a home with discount of between 33% and 50% of the 'market' purchase price. Which is what SH tenants can all do, once RTB is extended to HAers too. There are a lot of people who couldn't afford, say, 90k for a home, which is around what they'd cost in our area, but could pay 45k or 60k (which is coincidentally what they used to cost back when house prices bore some resemblance to local incomes). Obviously there are also SH tenants who won't be able to afford to buy theirs at all, I don't think my aunt could if she were 'only' eligible for a 33% discount rather than 50%. But quite clearly some people who can't afford 'market' price could afford to buy with a discount. Nothing contradictory about that. Most SH tenants are not in London...

Obviously if you're in an SH property in Central London or anywhere else very expensive, yes sure you probably could never afford to buy it on a 40k income unless you got an 80 or 90% discount. But those people will just reduce their household income instead. I would.

"I'm also confused as to why someone earning that amount should be allowed to live in social housing."

I think you'd find it hard to be socially housed if you were earning that amount, but I'm not sure how it works if you were already in social housing and then basically got a better job and pay rise.

Not sure you can just turn up at the local housing office and ask for a council house if you have a current salary of 30k; I assume they'd say you can afford to rent privately or try for a mortgage or something.

JakieOH not only is social housing not just for people on low incomes and in difficult circumstances, in some less popular areas you actually get prioritised for having a job. It's to prevent ghettoisation. I can see why this isn't possible in London and the south east where there's so little supply to meet the demand, but lots of us live in areas where people who want SH can generally get it within a couple of years. Admittedly we were on quite a bit less than we are now when we got ours, but the fact that we both worked put us in a higher priority band. Not all social housing is particularly oversubscribed.