Bob Crowe 2.0

[SueEllen]

Social housing is allocated on the basis of need it always has been.

And some of those who were initially in need were young middle class married couples. They later bought their own homes as there wasn't RTB then. (Yes they are all now elderly but these people exist.)

Yes people would play the system but if its driven by tax then its difficult to play.

Considering how permanent permanent jobs are now it wouldn't be too hard to play.

With the schools they had to put in ways to overcome people finding God, moving in with elderly relations for a couple of years, and renting for at least a year by doing things like using distance to include social housing, allocating places by a lottery or allocating places using distance zoning.

There is another choice we can build millions more houses and give everyone one! Not sure who will pay for it.

We can build more properties - notice I said property not house- for people to rent cheaply.

However a lot of people won't be happy being told where they get to live after given 3 choices, what type of property they can rent, and what they are allowed to do in that property - so people will still buy.

BTW there was nothing stopping these union guys buying their homes using RTB. Due to their ages we would be none the wiser if they had done it and kept their mouths shut

[vetran]

And some of those who were initially in need were young middle class married couples. They later bought their own homes as there wasn't RTB then. (Yes they are all now elderly but these people exist.)



Considering how permanent permanent jobs are now it wouldn't be too hard to play.

With the schools they had to put in ways to overcome people finding God, moving in with elderly relations for a couple of years, and renting for at least a year by doing things like using distance to include social housing, allocating places by a lottery or allocating places using distance zoning.



We can build more properties - notice I said property not house- for people to rent cheaply.

However a lot of people won't be happy being told where they get to live after given 3 choices, what type of property they can rent, and what they are allowed to do in that property - so people will still buy.

BTW there was nothing stopping these union guys buying their homes using RTB. Due to their ages we would be none the wiser if they had done it and kept their mouths shut

Problem with RTB is it depletes the housing stock. I would make RTB means tested and less generous - i.e. people who are doing ok then supply a suitable mortgage that they can qualify for not a 50% discount.

There will be abuses and they will need to be managed but there will be a lot of houses released, what I am proposing is charging the well off a premium to live in social housing so they voluntarily move out. If this chap was paying £3,600 to live in a council house and lost his RTB, then I would be great we are making money out of him he will move soon.

The reason there is a shortage of dwellings is we have not built enough social housing or freed it up from people who no longer need it or provided enough private rentals to drive rents down , its a triple pronged problem.

Most people on social housing need houses with gardens because they have kids.

If you are single you are less likely to qualify. I have seen some good projects that identify a particular issue e.g. Youth unemployed/troubled and providing dorms and support to get them into mainstream society, I think that is a better solution than giving them a flat and not fixing their problems.

Why should those that qualify for social housing especially if its because of their own choices get better options than the couple /person that works hard on low wages? I was talking to a chap in one of our offices around Reading doing basically reception he has just got promotion and is going to work in central London he will commute and buy a flat in his hometown rather buy a nice flat in London because after saving for years he can just about afford something near Reading. Social tenants expect to chose their location.

[TheDude]

He doesn't NEED subsidised housing is that a fact or not?

Plenty of retired folk don't NEED a state pension or the winter fuel allowance.

But it helps pays for those cruises and winter sunshine breaks in the Algarve whilst they blame the young and immigrants for the state of the country.

[vetran]

Plenty of retired folk don't NEED a state pension or the winter fuel allowance.

But it helps pays for those cruises and winter sunshine breaks in the Algarve whilst they blame the young and immigrants for the state of the country.

One set of problems at a time. Lets house the needy not subsidise champagne socialists (or any well off people) via social housing.

If your hatred of previous generations needs an outing do suggest an alternative. Taxing pensions already happens. Many well off people returned the winter fuel allowance the government could have restricted it to benefit recipients.

[TheDude]

One set of problems at a time. Lets house the needy not subsidise champagne socialists (or any well off people) via social housing.

If your hatred of previous generations needs an outing do suggest an alternative. Taxing pensions already happens. Many well off people returned the winter fuel allowance the government could have restricted it to benefit recipients.

The bloke is paid about the same as a head teacher. He could probably afford his own place but landing a £100k a year gig is not like winning the lottery.

[vetran]

The bloke is paid about the same as a head teacher. He could probably afford his own place but landing a £100k a year gig is not like winning the lottery.

He is on the 97th percentile for pay according to the ONS. He can afford to buy or rent his own house not have taxpayers on £18k subsidise him!

Frankly I'm happy to pay a head teacher of an outstanding school £100K. They used to pay head teachers of bog standard comprehensives £50k 30 years ago.

is not like winning the lottery.

Pretty sure most people would consider themselves fortunate if they earn't £100k a year. Well at least 96% of people.

No but getting subsidised accommodation is. "Win £2k a month per life for your and your children and your children's children etc"

That makes his pay more like £150K.

[SueEllen]

Problem with RTB is it depletes the housing stock. I would make RTB means tested and less generous - i.e. people who are doing ok then supply a suitable mortgage that they can qualify for not a 50% discount.

There will be abuses and they will need to be managed but there will be a lot of houses released, what I am proposing is charging the well off a premium to live in social housing so they voluntarily move out. If this chap was paying £3,600 to live in a council house and lost his RTB, then I would be great we are making money out of him he will move soon.

The reason there is a shortage of dwellings is we have not built enough social housing or freed it up from people who no longer need it or provided enough private rentals to drive rents down , its a triple pronged problem.

Most people on social housing need houses with gardens because they have kids.

Families with children manage and have managed in housing including social housing in London and other cities for decades without gardens so no they don't need gardens.

If you want a dwelling with a garden then buy your own place. If we are nice as taxpayers you get a balcony or yard - land is too expensive where we need to build homes.

If you are single you are less likely to qualify. I have seen some good projects that identify a particular issue e.g. Youth unemployed/troubled and providing dorms and support to get them into mainstream society, I think that is a better solution than giving them a flat and not fixing their problems.

I actually know people who got social housing flats as single people - either under 25 or over 60 - to prevent them being homeless. The young people weren't troubled it was just they were living with the rest of their family and overcrowded in most but not all cases so were rehoused. It is easier to rehouse someone in a studio/one bed flat and in rare cases a one-bed house/2 bed flat then to rehome an entire family in a 4 or more bed house. However this was decades ago. Old people are still rehoused as needed as they are placed in retirement flats which have a turn over.

Why should those that qualify for social housing especially if its because of their own choices get better options than the couple /person that works hard on low wages? I was talking to a chap in one of our offices around Reading doing basically reception he has just got promotion and is going to work in central London he will commute and buy a flat in his hometown rather buy a nice flat in London because after saving for years he can just about afford something near Reading. Social tenants expect to chose their location.

Social tenants have to have links to the area they want a home in. Apart from that if they reach the top of the list and don't take one of 3 options they are offered then they are making themselves intentionally homeless so are chucked off - well in the London boroughs I know about.

[ladymuck]

He is on the 97th percentile for pay according to the ONS. He can afford to buy or rent his own house not have taxpayers on £18k subsidise him!

Frankly I'm happy to pay a head teacher of an outstanding school £100K. They used to pay head teachers of bog standard comprehensives £50k 30 years ago.




Pretty sure most people would consider themselves fortunate if they earn't £100k a year. Well at least 96% of people.

No but getting subsidised accommodation is. "Win £2k a month per life for your and your children and your children's children etc"

That makes his pay more like £150K.

So he should have immediately moved out of the flat on the day he started his new job and then hope he gets it back when the contract ends and he's back on a wage you consider eligible for social housing?

It's not his fault that the system allows him to earn a very good wage while retaining his social housing accommodation.

Crikey if it were illegal the prisons would have one hell of an overcrowding problem, or HMT would be raking it in with fines all over the shop.

I refuse to play the morals card because that too would make me a hypocrite. Blame the system, not the person.

[malvolio]

Plenty of retired folk don't NEED a state pension or the winter fuel allowance.

But it helps pays for those cruises and winter sunshine breaks in the Algarve whilst they blame the young and immigrants for the state of the country.

You really don't understand how pensions work, do you? State pension is about £180 a week and that comes off your personal allowance. If you have a final salary pension on top, you are probably looking at about another £20k a year on top for the average worker. Plenty of people I know don't have that. Plenty more will have rather less since they won't have a final salary scheme at all.

Plus most pensioners have worked and contributed to the country and paid taxes for 40-45 years, so are hardly sponging off the state.

Cruises cost about the same as two weeks in Benidorm these days. Winter breaks on the Algarve (or anywhere else) are a thing of the past for almost everyone.

[vetran]

So he should have immediately moved out of the flat on the day he started his new job and then hope he gets it back when the contract ends and he's back on a wage you consider eligible for social housing?

It's not his fault that the system allows him to earn a very good wage while retaining his social housing accommodation.

Crikey if it were illegal the prisons would have one hell of an overcrowding problem, or HMT would be raking it in with fines all over the shop.

I refuse to play the morals card because that too would make me a hypocrite. Blame the system, not the person.

no he should pay a premium for blocking social housing so he is encouraged to move out when his circumstances improve.

Its hard to support a person who says the government should look after the needy then on £100k+ has a £50k subsidy from the government and blocks a flat for a family.