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.

No one gets £30k in benefits, it's capped.
Muff I think that just goes to show there is no one size fits all. Everyone is different and what one family would do is no reflection on the population of social housing

social housing rents are not too low

private housing rents are too high

it is not 'fair' that people renting privately have to pay such high rents so we should stop selling off social housing and build more - that way rents will fall to more affordable levels all round

Totally agree not all SH is over subscribed- even in London- and housing associations were mainly created to provide housing to working people. Times change and different companies meet different markets but generally they are for the purpose of providing housing to the cleaner, bus driver etc

making 'higher earners' in social housing will not increase the housing stock, reduce waiting lists or make private renting or buying any more affordable

stupid policy

Private housing rents are high, but that's because of supply and demand, it didn't happen just for the sake of it. And as people who get social housing significantly cheaper than what the local market would otherwise dictate, then they are getting an extremely good deal. So no, they aren't too low, but they aren't in line with normality either.

£30k is not a lot of money...

I was looking at this last night as I'm contemplating leaving my husband, I had a look to see if I would get any benefits as a single parent.

I'm on £33k + 6k car allowance. After tax that is £2400. My employer makes me spend at least £350 of that on a car, rent in this area £900 minimum, childcare is £750. I've then got council tax, food, gas and electricity etc to pay for.

This leaves me with absolutely nothing and I'm not entitled to any benefits.

So £30k is really not that much money!!!

Rave there are people who do get more than 30k in benefits. It's capped, but the cap doesn't apply if you're eligible for WTC or there's a disabled person in the household.

And sure, no family's circumstances are exactly the same. But anyone who thinks people won't tailor their circumstances according to what is most economically advantageous, short or long term, is kidding themself. Honestly, if you're a couple in Central London both on 20k, so your rent is going to be hundreds a month dearer under this policy, you'd need a very, very strong incentive for one of you not to drop your hours a bit.

I actually think the help to buy scheme is great. You can't get it if you own another property and your not allowed to leave and rent the oroperty out. I know a few people who, otherwise would never have been able to save a depost, have managed to get on the oroperty ladder and buy their own house.

Can't see s problem with it myself.

It wasn't made clear on what I read if the £30K or £40K was the combined household income or if it was counted only on highest income. Because combined household income of £30K could be two people on £15K each. Which is hardly high income.

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.

And who gave this waster a mortgage? Or is there another half of the story? Maybe the children have a father who works?

The UK does not have a shortage of houses.
It just has a badly distorted housing stock.

There are half a million empty homes in the UK - but the owners pay no taxes or costs on that other than £1500 a year in rates so have no incentive to bring them into use.

There are a million second homes in the UK that are only used part of the year or week - but the owners are not penalised in any way for removing homes from people who want to live there.

There are no penalties for RICH under-occupiers
you know, the widows in a five bed house - but its owned so that is OK.

House builders have planning permission for over 400,000 homes
but if they built them all, prices would fall, so they artificially choke the supply.

Bring in a land tax that was doubled for second and third homes

• - - - make the council tax bands go up to Z

stop offshore companies buying up flats and keeping them empty

• - - - - then the UK would have no shortage of homes.

Its not a bricks and mortar problem, its a tax system problem.

High earners at 30,000 wow. London rent is 1500 per month 30,000 isnt that much. Mind you we always paid full market rent and earnt alot less than 30,000 but together we got about that. Hence why we lived on 20-30 pounds a week food.

talkinpeace - the points you make are valid but the uk DOES have a shortage of homes. We are way behind where we should be in terms of building new homes (especially social housing)

the majority of people in the country don't live in London though despite what those living in London believe

£30,000 isn't much if you're a single parent though, is it.

Not sure what my answer is. We have no debts luckily and saved and bought cars outright. We pay for car tax and insurance annually so those months we don't save as much and Christmas we wouldn't save that much. Holiday abroad is ferry then driving to caravan so not as much as flying for 5 of us. Phones - mobile all inclusive package so home phone is just a hub with incoming calls. Paid for line rental up front so that's only 2.50 a month. No nursery fees as dc in school.
Don't know - can't see myself as on the breadline. I'm fairly good at cooking from scratch.
I can see in London it wouldn't go far which is why dh and I chose to move away from there, leaving family in Surrey.

£30,000 isn't much if you're a single parent though, is it.
FFS
YES IT IS Its more than 70% of the population earn.

Alec
We are way behind where we should be in terms of building new homes (especially social housing)
Having been in discussion with DCLG on this, I disagree.
Their policy section is stuffed full of people on secondment from house-builders.
Bringing homes into use does not make money for house-builders.
Building overpriced homes on greenfield does.
So that is the government policy.
If DCLG had to publish the names and source companies of all of the people there it would cause a riot.

Nearly as much of a riot as if the Treasury did the same and the public realised that tax policy is actually written by Big 4 Accountancy firms.

Number of dwellings (all property types) completions by tenure England 1946-2014

Year - Private - HA - Council - Total
1946 - 28,760 - 100 - 20,400 - 49,250
1947 - 38,630 - 860 - 81,370 - 120,860
1948 - 30,370 - 1,820 - 161,400 - 193,590
1949 - 23,800 - 1,330 - 139,530 - 162,110
1950 - 25,310 - 1,500 - 136,530 - 163,340
1951 - 20,170 - 1,610 - 140,510 - 162,290
1952 - 30,500 - 1,800 - 164,620 - 196,930
1953 - 58,270 - 7,200 - 198,210 - 263,680
1954 - 85,380 - 14,020 - 193,710 - 293,110
1955 - 106,800 - 4,350 - 158,860 - 270,010
1956 - 115,940 - 2,400 - 137,660 - 256,360
1957 - 118,820 - 1,880 - 135,660 - 256,360
1958 - 119,910 - 1,120 - 110,120 - 231,150
1959 - 141,510 - 1,110 - 95,990 - 238,600
1960 - 156,020 - 1,650 - 99,950 - 257,620
1961 - 163,350 - 1,560 - 91,250 - 256,160
1962 - 159,520 - 1,550 - 102,490 - 263,560
1963 - 160,630 - 1,930 - 94,020 - 256,580
1964 - 200,670 - 2,850 - 114,020 - 317,540
1965 - 196,750 - 3,620 - 127,290 - 327,660
1966 - 187,720 - 4,100 - 138,140 - 330,120
1967 - 183,720 - 4,520 - 154,500 - 342,740
1968 - 203,320 - 5,540 - 143,680 - 352,540
1969 - 164,070 - 7,100 - 135,700 - 306,860
1970 - 153,440 - 8,180 - 130,180 - 291, 790
1971 - 170,820 - 10,170 - 113,680 - 294,680
1972 - 173,990 - 6,900 - 91,630 - 272,520
1973 - 163,460 - 8,340 - 77,920 - 249,710
1974 - 121,490 - 9,260 - 98,610 - 229,360
1975 - 131.480 - 13,650 - 116,330 - 261,460
1976 - 130,900 - 14.440 - 118,090 - 263,430
1977 - 121,570 - 24,190 - 115,840 - 170,600
1978 - 127,490 - 20,570 - 93,300 - 241,360
1979 - 118,390 - 16,280 - 74,840 - 209,460
1980 - 110,230 - 19,300 - 74,840 - 204,370
1981 - 98,900 - 16,820 - 54,880 - 170,600
1982 - 108,790 - 11,180 - 31,660 - 151,630
1983 - 129,490 - 14,340 - 29,900 - 173,720
1984 - 138,970 - 13,920 - 29,190 - 182,080
1985 - 135,460 - 11,300 - 23,280 - 170,040
1986 - 148,890 - 10,620 - 19,630 - 179,140
1987 - 161,740 - 10,940 - 16,620 - 189,300
1988 - 176,020 - 10,780 - 16,630 - 202,930
1989 - 154,000 - 10,650 - 14,700 - 179,360
1990 - 136,060 - 13,820 - 14,020 - 163,900
1991 - 131,170 - 15,300 - 8,310 - 154,600
1992 - 119,530 - 20,790 - 3,510 - 143,830
1993 - 116,630 - 29,780 - 1,420 - 147,840
1994 - 122,720 - 30,850 - 1,090 - 147,840
1995 - 125,470 - 30,890 - 790 - 157,140
1996 - 121,550 - 27,030 - 510 - 149,090
1997 - 128,240 - 20,970 - 290 - 149,490
1998 - 122,510 - 19,900 - 240 - 142,650
1999 - 123,180 - 17,780 - 50 - 141,010
2000 - 118,330 - 16,680 - 90 - 135,100
2001 - 114,850 - 14,500 - 160 - 129,510
2002 - 123,320 - 13,310 - 180 - 136,800
2003 - 131,060 - 12,820 - 180 - 144,060
2004 - 137,330 - 16,600 - 130 - 154,070
2005 - 141,740 - 17,540 - 180 - 159,450
2006 - 139,910 - 20,660 - 280 - 160,850
2007 - 154,210 - 22,180 - 250 - 176,650
2008 - 121,100 - 26,470 - 430 - 148,010
2009 - 97,620 - 26,990 - 360 - 124,970
2010 - 83,280 - 22,650 - 90 - 106,720
2011 - 85,870 - 25,940 - 2,230 - 114,020
2012 - 88,740 - 25,440 - 1,140 - 115,590
2013 - 87,040 - 21,610 - 840 - 109,490
2014 - 93,210 - 23,890 - 1,180 - 118,280

given the population growth and change in make-up of families it is quite clear to me that we are not building enough homes to keep up with demand - this pushes up both rental and buying prices

30k isn't a lot if you have to pay 1000 child care a month and 1000 rent. It depends on outgoings.

Alec
I know the number of houses built has gone down.

But so has the number of houses being deliberately kept empty most of the time.
Surely its better to bring those 1,500,000 houses into use before we build more.

And as for household makeup.
Maybe if the penalties for having under occupied houses hit everybody rather than just the poor, more houses would be properly occupied again.

There are whole blocks of new build flats in London that are owned by offshore companies that have never been lived in, and never will, because the capital gain would be rendered taxable if the property had a UK resident occupant.

Land taxes on an empty $1,000,000 house in New York are $25,000 a year.

Rates on an empty £1,000,000 house in outer London are £1,000 a year.

Its a tax issue, not a bricks and mortar issue.

£30k per year is higher than the average wage, but it is less than the average household income

"its a tax issue, not a bricks and mortar issue."

I think it is both

£30k per year is higher than the average wage, but it is less than the average household income
But median household income (the one that half the population are above and below) is £26k

Income distribution is a skewed set ...
"Average" income is £26k - but that includes multi billionaires
"median" income is £18k

Some close family friends of ours live in a 3 bed housing association property in the SE. If the rent for their home was brought inline with massively inflated local market rates, then they would need to find another £500-600 per month. Totally and completely unreasonable and impossible.

Yet another policy designed to keep the poor down.