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.

yes but median household income includes pensioners who skew it downwards (and don't have to pay expenses like childcare). A pensioner household with no mortgage would be comfortably off on maybe 20k ish per year. How well off you are massively depends on what your outgoings are as well as your income.

But why is this select few allowed to pay substantially under the market rate for housing. Even if they earn above average incomes. I think that's totally unfair on people that don't have access to this cheaper housing.

I think it's a sensible policy. Ridiculous that people earning above average wages (and in some cases, WAY above) are living in subsidised social housing, while those on low pay can't find somewhere to live.

I think there should be a tapering off rather than a cliff-edge, so as not to disincentivise people to better themselves.

Those saying "are the HA going to spend money modernising the property?", well if they don't, you can move into another nicer property with the same market rent costs and live there instead. This will a) free up that HA property for a family on NMW in need, and b) if they HA can't rent it for the higher price then that will force them to either upgrade it to meet the market expectation the rent it or lower the rent.

Would make more sense if the extra income was ringfenced to provide more affordable housing, but if it goes back to the exchequer then maybe this is the Gov's long term plan (hopeful)...

£30k isn't high earning FFS

Times change and different companies meet different markets but generally they are for the purpose of providing housing to the cleaner, bus driver etc

This just isn't true at all, though. You can have whatever views you like about whether it should be, but the fact is that there are plenty of areas in the country where income isn't even considered. There are also others where employment as stable and comparatively well paid as bus driving would disqualify one entirely. 'Generally' is a dangerous term to use when it comes to SH, because the regional variation is so very vast. You also completely ignore SH for older, retired people ie non-workers.

so - some people living in social housing pay an affordable rent while some people living in privately rented accomodation have to pay stupidly high rents at 'market rate'

I know, rather than try to tackle stupidly high rents let's just make more people pay them. That will really benefit society!

Those of you who feel SH should be for those on the very lowest incomes only, please tell us your plans for preventing ghettoisation, and then for dealing with it when you fail to do so. Hint- your answer can't pretend that most SH is interspersed with non-SH. Tell us what you want to do with the big estates. Also, in those areas where there aren't enough NMW to go round, particularly in housing for over 50s or over 55s which often only barely match demand anyway, what then?

People don't seem to understand basic economics on this thread.

If you live in SE/London and are being paid so little you cant afford to rent without a subsidy in a HA/council property you logically need to move to a place in the UK where your wage allows you to rent a decent property in the private sector. The solution is not just to add more subsidy.

If enough people did move out of SE/London due to inadequate wages then employers in SE/London would need to pay higher wages. Subsidised housing just allows employers to pay lower wages than would otherwise be the case.

yip I think it's 100% fair.

It should help free up some social housing for those who really need it because people who earn 30k will probably prefer to rent somewhere privately if they need to pay similar rent. It will save and make money for the government and it may encourage people to buy a house instead where possible. which is obviously good for the housing market and economy.

Mrgove 30k is not high earning compared to what? It's high compared to NMW. I earn just under 30k and live, IMO, a comfortable life. I'm certainly not rich, far from it, but would not call myself poor either. Guess it depends on where you live though, it's all relative really.

it will not free up any social housing - why would anyone leave a secure tenancy in social housing for a less secure one in the private sector?

it will not encourage people to buy while we have shortage of housebulding

It should help free up some social housing for those who really need it because people who earn 30k will probably prefer to rent somewhere privately if they need to pay similar rent.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Why on earth would they want to do that? Privately renting in this country's an absolute shitter. I know, I did it for years. You can get chucked out with two months notice, there's no stability. Look, people are obviously entitled to whatever views they want on this issue, but some of you don't live on this planet.

I also think it's wrong to penalise people people that may be just managing on that wage.

Why should someone working and earning 30k have to move city because they can no longer afford to live there, while someone on benifits moves into the oroperty at a reduced rate . It's a tough one!

Muff muff you will find the majority of housing associations were formed to provide housing for what used to be known as the working poor. Argue all you want, I almost certainly know more about social housing than you do.

This thread had illustrated just how many families live in a bubble!
it should free up some social housing

Yeah, for sure.

If I moved out of the SE I would be moving away from my job, dh's job (which is v well paid for what he does he would get about £10k less elsewhere), my dc's school, all of our family (free childcare) and all of our friends, my excellent consultants who have looked after me for 16 years..... I HATE it when people say 'well if you can't afford to live in the south just move'. Yeah it's that simple.

SH was built to house people who lost their homes in the slum clearance.

Not in my housing association or the previous 6 have worked in in the last 15 years usual

If you know as much as you claim about social housing rave, you'll be well aware that SH and housing associations are not synonymous. This is SH includes both HA and council housing. If you do, indeed, know more than I do (I know a fair bit) then there's no way you didn't know this. So you must be blurring the lines on purpose.

People would be mad to give up a secure tenancy for a short term private let.

Sort that out and many more people would privately rent.

Of course I know that. What's that got to do with anything?

They weren't intended for anyone needing assistance (as such)
Many homes were built to make communities, to bring different families together. Just look at the advertising from the time.

I know people who still live in the houses they were moved too, when their streets were knocked down in the 60s and 70s.