to think its a disgrace that Cameron is going to stop lifetime council tenancies

[sparklesandglitterxx]

and think that that is NOT the solution to the housing crisis?

the solution as far as i can see it is, lots and lots more council houses need to be built, regulation in private renting needs to be improved, and GENUINELY affordable houses to buy for those on low wages that wish to or are able to buy

fed up of seeing the great things about Britain being chipped away. Why punish renters? The whole Tory attitude towards council housing being a last resort for the destitute disgusts me. council housing needs to be brought back to what it was originally meant for...which is a decent secure home for anyone who wants one. i live on a council estate which is a mix of council, HA and bought. People stay here, they build lives here, generally it is a lovely community. i have never been happier or more settled anywhere i have lived, I have done well in my life and been able to have a big family. my children are happy and thriving at school and have lots of friends. My point is if these changes go through, they will end up DESTROYING communities like ours and so many others. The Tories just seem to want everyone either paying their landlord mates every penny they earn or pushing up house prices by buying. But not everyone wants to buy, and more importantly not everyone CAN buy, (I have friends on good money who are still priced out the market) and hardly anyone would actually CHOOSE to be in insecure, expensive private rented !! I also think that if more people are in secure housing, it will help peoples mental health (hence cutting costs in mental health services), it will improve childrens chances in life, as they wont have to keep moving schools and away from friends etc, it will encourage people to better themselves, it will cut the HB bill, and also with people spending less on their rent they will have more to spend in the economy, thus boosting it!

I also suspect it wont end here....while it will be for new tenants only to start with, i would imagine it will end up being everyone in council / HA

I am enjoying the RAAAR it could earn more so its subsidised and then drifts back into free house territory though. It's very entertaining. Make your fucking mind up.

are they the same people?

because I noticed some people making the former claim, and some people making the latter (I am in the former camp). I have no control over what others say.

A neighbour of mine is working in Poundworld until 10pm tonight.

A neighbour of mine is working in Poundworld until 10pm tonight.

Sorry, but what exactly is your point with this?

I am sitting working. I have friends working a night shift tonight and again tomorrow night in a hospital. I have an in-law working in a hotel today and tomorrow.

None have been given a life-long subsidised council house for their troubles. Should we be?

Housing, homes, are not a privilege. Having a pretty basic roof over your head, and paying a reasonable amount to have this, is not some amazing gift bestowed upon the "needy" by the "taxpayer".

So, IfNotNowThenWhenever, are you saying that EVERYONE, regardless of income, should be allowed a subsidised, sorry, reduced-rent-for-life council house?

While we wait for the councils to go round buying all the property in the country using all the surplus money it has tucked away, who do you think should have priority at first? Those in desperate need? Or those with average and way above salaries who just quite like being able to spend a higher proportion of their income on luxuries and don't see why they should have to entirely support themselves?

Amarok he is an example of someone who gets HB who is working.

Plenty of people will be working all over the holiday from lawyers and doctors to low paid workers never mind vicars and organists (I was married to one of the latter - working until 1am on the Christmas Eve, up again to play the morning services etc etc). No one has ever given me a free house or a tax credit and I don't even get child benefit now as a single mother.
The point is the people spoke as we got fed up of the system (not the people who take that to which the law entitles them but the system and how it has for some incentivised part time work). Now we are pretty pleased with the children although more are needed.

I also know there are a lot of people struggline who work full time and with over time including single childless men (and women for that matter) who won't get child tax credits and are never top of the list of social housing.

Obviously one political stance has always been the state should own everything and everyone should be given their food and housed by the state. Plenty of groups and cultures operate that way although I don't think it works very well. We don't have that system in the UK except amongst religious and other groups who decide on a small scale basis to pool resources. However when the people vote for that system then yes we would change and those who did not like the change would move.

The left seem to think the right don't care. In fact we do care a lot and we just know our way is going to help the less well off more and it does.

"we do care a lot and we just know our way is going to help the less well off more and it does."

Do you really believe that? Because from where I'm standing, you lot are killing us with your "kindness"

Do you have any actual evidence that right wing policies help the less well off or is this based on supposition?

One of the defining aspects of this government has been their willingness to rush through legislation without research, piloting or evidence, but simply based on ideology and a belief that their policies are the correct course of action. Nor do they monitor the real social effects of many of their policies.

What has been the result of many years now of Tories in power (as part of the coalition and in majority?)

Homelessness is up, including homeless children.

Thousands of people - disproportionately the disabled - are being sanctioned and left with not enough money to survive on. Many have died after being sanctioned.

The bedroom tax has resulted in many disabled people having to leave homes which the council has spent £££££ adapting for their needs, into accommodation which does not suit their needs, losing independence and dignity.

Families affected by the benefits cap are being moved from places with jobs to places with few jobs.

Zero hours contracts are on the rise.

Many families will be worse off under Universal Credit despite solid promises that this would not be the case

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

I could go on.

There are many, many studies that demonstrate how poverty results in negative outcomes, such as poor health, lower educational attainment and life opportunities.

Please tell me what I'm missing? Where is the evidence that Tory policy helps those who are less well off? Because from where I'm standing, the kind of thinking that Tories are helping the poor help themselves is totally and utterly deluded IMO.

I don't even get child benefit now as a single mother.

Just finished laughing.

You are not exactly a struggling single mother are you dearie?

In the rest of Europe, lifetime tenancies are common and in general, tenants have far higher levels of security of tenure. The big difference between there and here is that their government hasnt engineered an economy that treats the ownership of what should be a family home as a high yielding investment and that is massively dependent on the property market and personal debt driving consumer spending in order to 'grow'. In these economies, homes are viewed as places to raise a family in, a base from which to build a business etc. 'Homes', basically.

If house prices could be brought under control eg through rent control, land tax and an effective and inheritance tax, nobody would worry about any perceived advantage from a 'lifetime tenancy'.

Inheritance tax is quite high enough. Why shouldn't people who have worked hard not be allowed to leave money and property to their children.

Totally agree. My parents worked hard all their lives and paid off mortgage and saved etc yet when they die my brother and I will lose a huge chunk of what they earnt and saved and pay the government that

They never claimed or got any help - just worked hard - but all their hard will be heavily taxed when it comes to us even tho they paid tax on it originally

Why shouldn't people who have worked hard not be allowed to leave money and property to their children.

those people didn't earn it? the children did squat to get that money.

A lot of people do less than squat to get benefits but they still get them. Most conuntries have a contribution based benefits system. No contributions no benefits. No wonder the Tories are in power.

Here is a radical idea.

Why not completely stop paying housing benefit or any benefits of any kind in the South East of England and thereby force employers to pay wages that cover employees full living costs. Likewise people without any job at all would be forced to move out of the South East. This would cause rents to fall and wages to rise for workers in the South East.

Housing Benefit and subsidised council houses allow employees to live in expensive parts of London when their wage is too low to cover living costs and allows the unemployed to remain living in London blocking a dwelling for those who are working.

I lived in London and rented and then moved out (to a rental property) outside London when DW lost her job and I wasn't working.

We cut our cloth to fit our means.

Lovely idea Beta, but nobody's going to be paying checkout or care staff 35k any time soon.

Well when supermarkets cant find checkout staff they will have to close and use home delivery or some other business model wont they?

Nurses and other care staff will be able to afford a home if there are large number of formerly 'blocked' houses and flats released to the market when HB tenants move out. Or there could be accommodation as part of the job.

Its an equilibrium. Wages and rents are not in equilibrium now because of housing benefit and tax credit subsidy that allows employers to pay less than they otherwise would to attract employees.

I completely agree with your last point, but I just think it would be fairer to go after the fat cat bosses and LLs rather than see the poor cow who wipes your Nan's bum for NMW being evicted along with her children because you've stopped her HB.

I think that's a good idea Beta. What a nonsense that the rest of us have to subsidise people to live in parts of the country we couldn't even afford to live in ourselves. There should be houses near hospitals available to people who work there. The private companies can sort themselves out if they want to stay in London. This country is far too concentreated on London.

Housing benefits and tax credits have done nothing but encourage higher rents and lower wages and high house prices. It's a vicious circle which means cries for ever higher benefits. They should be phased out.

The truth is that house prices have been driven so high in London that in effect it is no longer part of the UK. London is part of an international network of super cities that have their own economy.

London should not therefore be part of the tax credit and housing benefit and unemployment system of the wider UK. It has to be declared a special economic zone. Indeed, many of its residents are 'international' and non domiciled non tax payers. Its main economy is financial markets which also international.

London employment and housing markets therefore certainly should not be subsidised in any way.

Bit late coming back to this, but subsidies that home owners and private landlords get include:

• housing benefit to private landlords (cost: £12 billion per year)

• LA guaranteed leasing agreements with private landlords (eg guaranteeing that rent will be covered for a fixed period - typically five years - including during void periods)
• income support for mortgage interest for home-owners during period of unemployment

- low-cost home ownership schemes eg Help To Buy (cost: £3 billion so far) - renovation and maintenance grants for landlords and home owners - tax relief on mortgages for private landlords - tax relief on maintenance for private landlords - tax relief on capital gains tax for home owners - schedule A tax scrapped for home owners some time ago (we are one of the few countries in the developed world to have done this - even the USA, bastion of the free economy, charges an annual tax to home-owners based on the capital value of their assets)

So, a fair bit of subsidy going on then. Still, it's council tenants who are the ones doing the sponging.

Oh and the total cost of that little lot, as calculated by people better with figures than me, is £24 billion a year.

So let's get all steamed up about the £36 a week lower rent that people in council housing pay, shall we?

youmustbe - I agree with your list. They are another leg to the story of why the UK housing market is so distorted.

If the enormous benefit of tax free capital gains was removed and a tax imposed on the rent 'saved' by owner occupation like dividends are taxed form owning shares then home ownership would not be so attractive and house prices would be more affordable and rents would also be lower.

The more subsidy is ladled on to the housing market the higher prices and rents will climb. Problem is the Govt is terrified of removing the subsidies as the price of houses would collapse and people would walk away from mortgages (so called 'jingle mail') as they handed back the keys to the lenders.

In turn the lenders would collapse as they coulc not recover the loans they had made from selling the repossessed huses and the 2009 financial crisis would look like a picnic. In the long run though the entire UK economy would be be better for it and society less divided.

ABetaDad, I agree that just removing all of these measures would cause problems, but I don't think people would just walk away from their homes unless they were in serious financial difficulties. And there would be room to help out those who were eg in negative equity and needed to sell - £24 billion a year worth of room, in fact. It would just be a question of targeting that money rather than splurging it across in the way we are doing now in order to prop up the almighty housing market (hate that phrase).

Oops almost forgot - raising the IHT threshold to £1m - that's another £1 billion a year right there gone. And it's gone to bloody millionaires!

Yes increasing the IHT band to £1 million was done largely in response to the massive increase in London property prices. In other words the asset whch you don't pay any capital gains tax on (i.e your house) is now also exempt from IHT.

The Govt always moan about lack of entrepreneurship in the UK but in reality owning a tax free property which you live in has been by far the safest and best performing investment for anybody in London and South East in the last 10 years and all with no effort at all. Why bother starting a business? Just get a normal job in London and by a house with a mortgage. It skews the whole economy.

A lot of people do less than squat to get benefits but they still get them. Most conuntries have a contribution based benefits system. No contributions no benefits. No wonder the Tories are in power.

you can do less than nothing?

If you read, I don't support our benefits system, especially HB. But you support higher IHT.