“People with high incomes would be banned from renting council houses under proposals by Michael Gove to ensure homes go to those in the greatest financial need.
The Housing Secretary is consulting on a law which will impose a nationwide salary threshold for new social housing tenants, meaning they will not be able to take up homes that poorer people are waiting for.
Latest figures show that 186,000 social households have an income exceeding £50,000 – 4.6 per cent of the total – despite there being long waiting lists among people in much greater need.
It has not yet been decided what the level of the income test will be, although it will cover the salaries of both partners.
Mr Gove’s new powers will not affect existing tenants on high salaries, and people will not be evicted if they receive a pay rise which takes them above the threshold, as this would penalise people “for improving their lot in life”.
In addition, the Housing Secretary wants those who commit anti-social behaviour to face a ban of up to five years under the proposals”
There is . . . nothing wrong with this.
People who can afford to rent privately **shouldn’t** be taking up a ***new*** council housing rental.
People who are already council housing tenants, should (and will be able to) remain in their council houses, even if they subsequently succeed in life and go over the income caps (or get married, etc, etc).
If their income rises above a certain cap but they already live there wouldn’t it be fair to be expected to also pay a higher rent?
[deleted]
Shouldn’t it also be the case that this extends to these same households not being able to purchase their social housing at discounted rates?
[deleted]
Surely this ban is also in place by default? I’d be fascinated to know how many high earners have been offered a council house in the last 5 years. .
I strongly suspect that where high earners have been offered a council house it will be due to exceptional circumstances.
For instance, a family with a severely disabled child who requires extensive house adaptations that no private landlord is ever going to agree to.
What will be the choice for those families – quit their high paying job or put the child into care? No one wins.
This just seems to be an announcement for announcements sake.
Current tenants are grandfathered in so won’t be evicted, and in any event they form less than 5% of current stock.
And they won’t give it new higher earners. Several councils already enforce income based eligibility criteria.
“yeah, sorry I’m gonna have to turn down that promotion or I’ll lose my house…”
I’m all for the antisocial behaviour bans .. I’d go further with regards to how the property is maintained by the tennant..
As for income related bans, they already kind of exist anyway as the list allocates properties on need so someone earning a good salary would be way down on the list.. so it’s just another dog whistle story for the right wing knuckle draggers
Is £50k really that much a year for a couple?! No it is not.. it’s just tories being Tories.. they should be council housing for all and anyone who wants one. Rent is not affordable in this country
Does anyone actually believe that high earners are currently being offered social housing?
so this seems to be a load of rubbish. there is a lack of social housing. People get allocated social housing based on need. It is very unlikely high earners are going to be given social housing, probably does not happen at all.
So this announcement is purely for headlines and has literally no material effect on anything.
Basically the only policies that the tories are in anyway interested in enacting that actually bring about change fall in to 2 different categories:
1. Command and control, to reduce peoples rights and protections e.g. stuff preventing people from protesting
2. legislation that tampers with the voting system to skew voting towards the conservatives
They don’t do anything else. All the others have no impact but they think will sound good to the electorate and further create in-fighting, like this one.
I mean perhaps they could help fund councils to build more social housing. Its investment and also would give councils some form of longterm income.
There are high earners not paying the market rate renting social housing. There are low earners paying the market rate renting private housing.
Then there’s the lucky people who after not paying the market rate for a number of years, with the money saved, can then purchase the property at a 30-70% discount.
We need a fairer system for all.
I have no problem with high earners staying in their council houses. They just should lose their subsidised rent. It should be the same as open market rent.
I don’t see the need for this.
Council housing is for everyone but given according to need, if someone has a lot of money they should already be lower priority than someone with no money because they have less options.
Ideally (in my opinion) everyone should have access to council housing and there should be enough for everyone who wants one.
Any chance of him announcing that they are gonna be unfucking the economy?? I didn’t think so
Their just throwing random darts at a board now…out of ideas, out of morals and hopefully out of fucking time.
No social housing isn’t for poor people. I mean I hate having to explain why agreeing with the Tories is a bad thing but I guess the comments force me to.
Social housing is a very secure and cheap tenancy to have. Your rights a social housing tenant is astronomically higher than any private tenancy. This security and the rightsyou get is why social housing is such a great thing.
Forcing people to deal with private landlords who don’t let you decorate, can evict you whenever they want etc (everyone knows how terrible private landlords are) is a terrible idea and will lead to much more problems as a result.
The solution is to not divide people by social classes and have a “poor people” housing and “rich people” housing but to properly fund local councils housing departments through buying back properties and building new ones so that everyone can have access to safe, secure and cheap housing.
That’s the sound of an election right around the corner.
I agree with this for once (can’t believe I agree with the Tory’s) I’ll give you an example my next door neighbour has a three bedroom council house she got it in the 80s had three kids all moved out now just her in there. I live next door private rent with 3 kids and my wife my rent is considerably more than hers but I would give anything to have a council house just for the low rent aspect. She’s a lovely neighbour and this isn’t me slagging her off but why can’t the council move her to say a bungalow and let someone who needs that 3 bedroom house take it
forced into mortgages, what if the company goes tits up, then what.
Omg this does not happen anyway.
I’m a low earner (min wage) that’s too much to get on the local council list…you have to be unemployed or homeless in Nottingham to get one.
Plus, start checking people that are sub-renting their council flat or people that are unemployed for generations and living out public money.
Tbh I would rather be in a council house next to an accountant etc then the scrotums that occupy them now.
I think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, if you’ve worked hard and got a decent job you should be rewarded with maybe cheaper rent, if you’ve been drinking, smoking and knocking out babies since you were 14 maybe you should just be sent to Australia 2.
On a high level this really makes sense – keep affordable housing for those that need it, and providing you put safeguards in place to protect people losing their home as they advance then it’s all good.
The big thing I have a problem with is this is yet another thing taken away from high earners. It feels like the better you do in this country the less you get – conceptually that’s good as you can be more self sufficient – but it really is a bad feeling when you work hard and contribute then you find out you lose child benefits, you lose your tax free allowance, you don’t qualify for certain things.
It’s funny how the Conservatives have had 15 years to come up with sensible policies but it’s only now they have.
If your situation warrants the need for counsil housing, then you get counsil housing. rich people don’t need counsil housing, shocking stuff.
This is just introducing another level of bureaucracy for the handful of people who’d become wealthy and choose to stay where they are.
And who’s going to pay for this bureaucracy?
Sounds 100% like a pointless electoral move to appeal for the working class tory voters.
There’s nothing wrong with this why should people that can afford to either rent privately or buy a house shouldn’t be taking up cheaper council houses I live in a council flat because I’m on benefits my sister lives in a private let because she’s got a good paying job with the council (and she’s waiting until her boyfriend gets out of prison to buy)
There’s a lot of issues round this, cause some don’t stay as high earners forever and then you renting a council flat and on low pay and become an high earner does it mean you give up your home?
I’m not British but have been living in the UK since 2015. I know a lot of people who somehow ended up with a council house who really really don’t deserve it and just gamed the system. It seems really broken to me but then because I wasn’t born here I don’t understand the system and the reasons behind the decisions it makes.
32 comments
“People with high incomes would be banned from renting council houses under proposals by Michael Gove to ensure homes go to those in the greatest financial need.
The Housing Secretary is consulting on a law which will impose a nationwide salary threshold for new social housing tenants, meaning they will not be able to take up homes that poorer people are waiting for.
Latest figures show that 186,000 social households have an income exceeding £50,000 – 4.6 per cent of the total – despite there being long waiting lists among people in much greater need.
It has not yet been decided what the level of the income test will be, although it will cover the salaries of both partners.
Mr Gove’s new powers will not affect existing tenants on high salaries, and people will not be evicted if they receive a pay rise which takes them above the threshold, as this would penalise people “for improving their lot in life”.
In addition, the Housing Secretary wants those who commit anti-social behaviour to face a ban of up to five years under the proposals”
There is . . . nothing wrong with this.
People who can afford to rent privately **shouldn’t** be taking up a ***new*** council housing rental.
People who are already council housing tenants, should (and will be able to) remain in their council houses, even if they subsequently succeed in life and go over the income caps (or get married, etc, etc).
If their income rises above a certain cap but they already live there wouldn’t it be fair to be expected to also pay a higher rent?
[deleted]
Shouldn’t it also be the case that this extends to these same households not being able to purchase their social housing at discounted rates?
[deleted]
Surely this ban is also in place by default? I’d be fascinated to know how many high earners have been offered a council house in the last 5 years. .
I strongly suspect that where high earners have been offered a council house it will be due to exceptional circumstances.
For instance, a family with a severely disabled child who requires extensive house adaptations that no private landlord is ever going to agree to.
What will be the choice for those families – quit their high paying job or put the child into care? No one wins.
This just seems to be an announcement for announcements sake.
Current tenants are grandfathered in so won’t be evicted, and in any event they form less than 5% of current stock.
And they won’t give it new higher earners. Several councils already enforce income based eligibility criteria.
“yeah, sorry I’m gonna have to turn down that promotion or I’ll lose my house…”
I’m all for the antisocial behaviour bans .. I’d go further with regards to how the property is maintained by the tennant..
As for income related bans, they already kind of exist anyway as the list allocates properties on need so someone earning a good salary would be way down on the list.. so it’s just another dog whistle story for the right wing knuckle draggers
Is £50k really that much a year for a couple?! No it is not.. it’s just tories being Tories.. they should be council housing for all and anyone who wants one. Rent is not affordable in this country
Does anyone actually believe that high earners are currently being offered social housing?
so this seems to be a load of rubbish. there is a lack of social housing. People get allocated social housing based on need. It is very unlikely high earners are going to be given social housing, probably does not happen at all.
So this announcement is purely for headlines and has literally no material effect on anything.
Basically the only policies that the tories are in anyway interested in enacting that actually bring about change fall in to 2 different categories:
1. Command and control, to reduce peoples rights and protections e.g. stuff preventing people from protesting
2. legislation that tampers with the voting system to skew voting towards the conservatives
They don’t do anything else. All the others have no impact but they think will sound good to the electorate and further create in-fighting, like this one.
I mean perhaps they could help fund councils to build more social housing. Its investment and also would give councils some form of longterm income.
There are high earners not paying the market rate renting social housing. There are low earners paying the market rate renting private housing.
Then there’s the lucky people who after not paying the market rate for a number of years, with the money saved, can then purchase the property at a 30-70% discount.
We need a fairer system for all.
I have no problem with high earners staying in their council houses. They just should lose their subsidised rent. It should be the same as open market rent.
I don’t see the need for this.
Council housing is for everyone but given according to need, if someone has a lot of money they should already be lower priority than someone with no money because they have less options.
Ideally (in my opinion) everyone should have access to council housing and there should be enough for everyone who wants one.
Any chance of him announcing that they are gonna be unfucking the economy?? I didn’t think so
Their just throwing random darts at a board now…out of ideas, out of morals and hopefully out of fucking time.
No social housing isn’t for poor people. I mean I hate having to explain why agreeing with the Tories is a bad thing but I guess the comments force me to.
Social housing is a very secure and cheap tenancy to have. Your rights a social housing tenant is astronomically higher than any private tenancy. This security and the rightsyou get is why social housing is such a great thing.
Forcing people to deal with private landlords who don’t let you decorate, can evict you whenever they want etc (everyone knows how terrible private landlords are) is a terrible idea and will lead to much more problems as a result.
The solution is to not divide people by social classes and have a “poor people” housing and “rich people” housing but to properly fund local councils housing departments through buying back properties and building new ones so that everyone can have access to safe, secure and cheap housing.
That’s the sound of an election right around the corner.
I agree with this for once (can’t believe I agree with the Tory’s) I’ll give you an example my next door neighbour has a three bedroom council house she got it in the 80s had three kids all moved out now just her in there. I live next door private rent with 3 kids and my wife my rent is considerably more than hers but I would give anything to have a council house just for the low rent aspect. She’s a lovely neighbour and this isn’t me slagging her off but why can’t the council move her to say a bungalow and let someone who needs that 3 bedroom house take it
forced into mortgages, what if the company goes tits up, then what.
Omg this does not happen anyway.
I’m a low earner (min wage) that’s too much to get on the local council list…you have to be unemployed or homeless in Nottingham to get one.
Plus, start checking people that are sub-renting their council flat or people that are unemployed for generations and living out public money.
Tbh I would rather be in a council house next to an accountant etc then the scrotums that occupy them now.
I think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, if you’ve worked hard and got a decent job you should be rewarded with maybe cheaper rent, if you’ve been drinking, smoking and knocking out babies since you were 14 maybe you should just be sent to Australia 2.
On a high level this really makes sense – keep affordable housing for those that need it, and providing you put safeguards in place to protect people losing their home as they advance then it’s all good.
The big thing I have a problem with is this is yet another thing taken away from high earners. It feels like the better you do in this country the less you get – conceptually that’s good as you can be more self sufficient – but it really is a bad feeling when you work hard and contribute then you find out you lose child benefits, you lose your tax free allowance, you don’t qualify for certain things.
It’s funny how the Conservatives have had 15 years to come up with sensible policies but it’s only now they have.
If your situation warrants the need for counsil housing, then you get counsil housing. rich people don’t need counsil housing, shocking stuff.
This is just introducing another level of bureaucracy for the handful of people who’d become wealthy and choose to stay where they are.
And who’s going to pay for this bureaucracy?
Sounds 100% like a pointless electoral move to appeal for the working class tory voters.
There’s nothing wrong with this why should people that can afford to either rent privately or buy a house shouldn’t be taking up cheaper council houses I live in a council flat because I’m on benefits my sister lives in a private let because she’s got a good paying job with the council (and she’s waiting until her boyfriend gets out of prison to buy)
There’s a lot of issues round this, cause some don’t stay as high earners forever and then you renting a council flat and on low pay and become an high earner does it mean you give up your home?
I’m not British but have been living in the UK since 2015. I know a lot of people who somehow ended up with a council house who really really don’t deserve it and just gamed the system. It seems really broken to me but then because I wasn’t born here I don’t understand the system and the reasons behind the decisions it makes.