Earn over £100k? Get out of your council house.
Discussion
About time too. Though I expect it will hardly be used at all, as the tenants will appeal etc.
Can't wait to see bob Crow moving out. Twunt will no doubt have his housing paid for by the unions anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/R...
They also need to stop inheritances of council house rights. 90,000+ people are in council homes at cheap rent just because their parents were.
I'd reduce the cap to less than 100k on earnings. 50k is still way over average earnings and beyond what could be deemed "in poverty and needing a state subsidized home"
I'd reduce the cap to less than 100k on earnings. 50k is still way over average earnings and beyond what could be deemed "in poverty and needing a state subsidized home"
If Crow earns over £100k, I suspect that he will make a song and dance about taking a wage cut in these tough and testing times, about how he feels the pain of the average man, about us all pulling together to get to the other side. Blah Blah Blah.
£99,999 isn't a bad wage though.
Edit:
£99,999 isn't a bad wage though.
Edit:
alfaman said:
I'd reduce the cap to less than 100k on earnings. 50k is still way over average earnings and beyond what could be deemed "in poverty and needing a state subsidized home"
Edited by MX7 on Saturday 4th June 11:09
Elroy Blue said:
Yeah. We need to be paying yet more housing benefit so people can live in houses working people could never afford.
So you'd rather we continue to subsidise the likes of Bob Crow AND continued subsidising people who are living in privately rented property, whilst on the council house waiting list?AndrewW-G said:
Elroy Blue said:
Yeah. We need to be paying yet more housing benefit so people can live in houses working people could never afford.
So you'd rather we continue to subsidise the likes of Bob Crow AND continued subsidising people who are living in privately rented property, whilst on the council house waiting list?
This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
MX7 said:
If Crow earns over £100k
Militant union baron Bob Crow has brushed aside calls for wage restraint – and quietly pocketed an astonishing 12 per cent pay rise. The hardline general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union has taken the £10,000 salary increase, despite the painful pay freeze affecting millions of workers in both the public and private sectors.
His basic pay rose from £84,923 in 2008 to £94,747 at the end of last year, according to figures published by the RMT. Bob Crow, who is calling for sustained general strikes, has pocketed a 12 per cent pay rise
And his overall pay package rose from £122,167 to £133,183 last year.
On top of this he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302316/Bo...
hornetrider said:
It's a confusing viewpoint, for sure
This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
FWIW I think that a portion of the housing returned to stock, should go to key workers, i.e. Nurses / Firemen / community police officers (all of which could be linked to pay grade . . . get promoted or moved to none community serving roles and you'd need to sort out your own housing)This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
hornetrider said:
This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
No. I work for a living, get taxed to death and own a modest house.While it may seem logical to kick out wealthy paying tenants, it disgusts me that some people are getting paid more in housing benefit than the average WORKER earns in a year. Why a wealthy person would want to live in a council house is another question.
AndrewW-G said:
hornetrider said:
It's a confusing viewpoint, for sure
This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
FWIW I think that a portion of the housing returned to stock, should go to key workers, i.e. Nurses / Firemen / community police officers (all of which could be linked to pay grade . . . get promoted or moved to none community serving roles and you'd need to sort out your own housing)This is a policy with no downsides. One theory is Mr Elroy's total household income is quite large, but he's living in a council house? I could be wide of the mark, of course.
Surely there are plenty of "key" workers who don't receive such glowing treatment. For example if people didn't maintain the sewage systems things would get pretty nasty pretty quickly. Or for that matter those who just ensure food gets to the shops and sell it. Society wouldn't last long without them and they're not paid very much but they have to live in expensive areas.
Elroy Blue said:
We can kick out the people who pay the rent and give the houses to 'the poor' so the taxpayer picks up the bill. Great.
They may pay the rent but it isn't the open market rate. Equally disgraceful is that towns in 'wealthy' areas have a substantial chunk of their housing rental income swiped by the government regardless of local needs.
Why are there council houses in an area where rent would be £83k per year? If they want to save money, why don't they sell those houses and relocate tenants to a cheaper area?
If your on over £100k too, don't you have more right than someone on £15k to have a council house, after all your paying more towards it.
If your on over £100k too, don't you have more right than someone on £15k to have a council house, after all your paying more towards it.
Earn over £100k? Get out of your council house.
I don't have problem with that. However, as only 1% of the working population earn more than that and the proportion of those that do living in social housing is pretty much miniscule it's not going to any meaningful dent in housing waiting lists.
I don't have problem with that. However, as only 1% of the working population earn more than that and the proportion of those that do living in social housing is pretty much miniscule it's not going to any meaningful dent in housing waiting lists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff