Monkey boy Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Ofcourse social housing rents have to rise. How else can we continue to afford allowing rich companies & individuals to pay little or nothing in tax & pay the ever increasing number of government employees on over £100K per year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Fair means testing, a reduction in size of accommodation when children have left home, removal of tenants when they exceed a specified income and forced eviction for poor upkeep of the property. This way, those that need state accommodation can and will get it, those that have over a set limit can therefore afford private rent and should, those that allow the property they dwell in become a shithole get booted out and those that no longer require a large property move to a smaller dwelling.....sorted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Are poor people exempt from the rent rise then? If it was means tested then likely yes, or at least better insulated from it. It better be means-tested; otherwise, it would amount to a poll tax. Although I agree with means testing, it could be anti-productive in this case. What it seems they are doing is (hopefully) pushing all state housing rents up to be similar, or not far off private rents, then giving housing benefit to those who need it. But those who need it must prove so on a regular basis. However they do it as long as its fair to those on lower incomes is all people can expect. Social housing is a really important part of a fair society and more and more its obvious that we have a very unbalanced economy that's not distributing wealth fairly. So as long as it frees up housing for those who need it, and it doesn't load unfair increases on those who can't afford them that's all you can really expect. The only problem in the Island is the pisstakers who could have afforded to move on years ago and didn't - they're not paying they're fair share and they're not freeing up housing for those who genuinely need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 So how do you convince people to pay 4X as much to buy their own house just so the government can steal it from you to sell to pay your care home bills if you end up there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You simply sell your house to a family member for a quid and rent it back for a quid a month. It's not yours for them to steal then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You simply sell your house to a family member for a quid and rent it back for a quid a month. It's not yours for them to steal then. i think there is a 7 year rule on island? so anything you have passed on to family within 7 years of you needing it the government count as still yours under the assumption you were trying to avoid them getting it. across the pond there was an article in the papers claiming government/council bods were going back beyond the 7 years because people had deliberately transferred assets years ago to avoid loosing them if it became necessary for authorities to plunder their coffers in later life. every body knows about it now and many are taking steps the powers that be don't want the masses taking. the downside with transferring stuff to kids is that they then have the control to sell up and piss it all away from under you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 So how do you convince people to pay 4X as much to buy their own house just so the government can steal it from you to sell to pay your care home bills if you end up there? Oh yes. How stupid of me. Now I can see that its actually a great asset protection scheme. Make absoutely sure you accumulate no assets at all during your life, just on the off chance that if you're really sick when your old they can't take your assets off you. There's a reason why a lot of people stay in council housing, and those sort of aspirations probably typify those can happily afford to move out but still dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 So how do you convince people to pay 4X as much to buy their own house just so the government can steal it from you to sell to pay your care home bills if you end up there? Oh yes. How stupid of me. Now I can see that its actually a great asset protection scheme. Make absoutely sure you accumulate no assets at all during your life, just on the off chance that if you're really sick when your old they can't take your assets off you. There's a reason why a lot of people stay in council housing, and those sort of aspirations probably typify those can happily afford to move out but still dont. it isn't so much about asset protection, more about disposable income protection. how do you get people to give up cash in pocket for the benefit of others?? some, not all the people in social housing have a choice, buy a house which may or may not get stolen by the government later on in life and have not a lot of money left for nice cars , TV's, holidays etc but have enough to get by on and make room for others. OR pay cheap rent with no repair bills or upgrade costs and have plenty of money left for nice cars, big TV's, iphones all round , the full sky package and two holidays to the sun a year. given the choice which would you go for really????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 it isn't so much about asset protection, more about disposable income protection. how do you get people to give up cash in pocket for the benefit of others?? some, not all the people in social housing have a choice, buy a house which may or may not get stolen by the government later on in life and have not a lot of money left for nice cars , TV's, holidays etc but have enough to get by on and make room for others. OR pay cheap rent with no repair bills or upgrade costs and have plenty of money left for nice cars, big TV's, iphones all round , the full sky package and two holidays to the sun a year. given the choice which would you go for really????? Which is exactly why SH should be means tested. If you can't rely on people to do the "right thing" by their fellow human beings, you have to make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 it isn't so much about asset protection, more about disposable income protection. how do you get people to give up cash in pocket for the benefit of others?? some, not all the people in social housing have a choice, buy a house which may or may not get stolen by the government later on in life and have not a lot of money left for nice cars , TV's, holidays etc but have enough to get by on and make room for others. OR pay cheap rent with no repair bills or upgrade costs and have plenty of money left for nice cars, big TV's, iphones all round , the full sky package and two holidays to the sun a year. given the choice which would you go for really????? Which is exactly why SH should be means tested. If you can't rely on people to do the "right thing" by their fellow human beings, you have to make them. no argument here, but how can it be done fairly?? and no matter how fair it really is, if you are one of those that should be gone and can see your pocket money going you aren't going to be a happy camper ( or squatter ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Jampton Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Another situation may a hard working person being offered promotion at work but the increase in wages takes them over into the next threshold for his SH income based rent.. This leaves him with more income tax and more rent to pay leaving him to consider whether the promotion is not a financial advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 ''given the choice which would you go for really????? '' Home ownership over Council Estate? Home ownership every time. Snobby? Possibly but we have changed from a Working Class Nation content to put their name down for a Council House, to a Middle Class one which wants to own their own Home. It is a choice that we make, there are ups and downs but we know the rules when we go down this route. The joy of owning a large asset and after 20 or so years, nothing more to pay, just what our consumerism driven Society wants! So why be jealous of those who have chosen a different route? Even those whose financial circumstances have changed and in theory could afford to buy? It may be too late for them to get a mortgage, they may be happy in their Home. There is much accommodation in Douglas which is frankly, a disgrace for a Society such as ours to tolerate. There are occupied properties which can best be described as Slums and yet, I somehow doubt that it is to rehouse some of these People that the detractors of SH rent levels are trying to achieve. I think it is pure jealousy and a misconception that someone is getting something on the cheap. A mortgage ties up a fair chunk of a Families income and is Tax negative, this leaves less for them to spend 'into the economy', sure they will have ongoing R&R and F&F but then, so do the LGB and Councils which will nearly match the private refurbishments. The lower rents leaves a SH tenant with a higher disposable income ( in % terms ) than a Homeowner, a SH tenant will pay their rent for life, not the term of the mortgage. Could it be that SH tenants contribute a greater spend into our 'economy-go-round' than homeowners? As to the Housing deficit, I would think that it is somewhat lower than the Tax Relief on Mortgages? We are an unbalanced Society, live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 it isn't so much about asset protection, more about disposable income protection. how do you get people to give up cash in pocket for the benefit of others?? some, not all the people in social housing have a choice, buy a house which may or may not get stolen by the government later on in life and have not a lot of money left for nice cars , TV's, holidays etc but have enough to get by on and make room for others. OR pay cheap rent with no repair bills or upgrade costs and have plenty of money left for nice cars, big TV's, iphones all round , the full sky package and two holidays to the sun a year. given the choice which would you go for really????? Which is exactly why SH should be means tested. If you can't rely on people to do the "right thing" by their fellow human beings, you have to make them. Exactly. The rest are subsidising that lifestyle. That is simply not fair. The money used to subsidise these people is not insignificant and can be used on thins like health and education. Things we all actually need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I have no problem with providing social housing but they need to be building more and greater variety-not on estates but mixed in with other houses and flats. In recent years local authorities only seem to have refurbished and replaced existing dwellings. It seems to me that one housing authority for this small island would be able to plan, manage and build more effectively than the present system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I have no problem with providing social housing but they need to be building more and greater variety-not on estates but mixed in with other houses and flats. In recent years local authorities only seem to have refurbished and replaced existing dwellings. It seems to me that one housing authority for this small island would be able to plan, manage and build more effectively than the present system. Shhhhh. you'll waken comissioner callister. leave his houses alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.