out of interest topmixer, do you think there should be a cap on what people can earn and still receive subsidised housing? if so how much?
Kenny1975:
Carryfast:
damoq:
I don’t know if I’m reading this wrong. But the OP says he has never claimed for anything in his life, suggesting that his rent is not been subsidised in the first place. It appears now that he is earning a decent wage, they have bumped up his rent. I’d be a bit peed off at that too. Where’s the incentive to better yourself if that’s what’s going to happen.The real Conservative definition of ‘bettering yourself’ means not relying on the state to subsidise your living costs especially if you’re earning £600 pw.
However ‘if’ the OP was to say that even £600 per week isn’t enough to live on comfortably.Then just maybe his ( possibly justified ) argument should be that those 1970’s strikers weren’t the greedy militants they were painted as being and we’ve got an incomes crisis not a housing or benefits one.
Thats not the Tories parties way of thinking, its about screwing people over to make the rich richer.
Heaven forbid people are allowed affordable housing, rather than a market which is artificially overinflated. If it was really for people bettering themselves it would pump money into the economy building more council or HA houses, create jobs like a government should really job.
Instead its wanting to turn us all into wage slaves with unaffordable housing, whilst the government subsidises banks, big business in the form of government contracts, tax breaks and everything else.
The 1970’s is like a magic word the Tories have made, as soon as they are mentioned most people think of unions out of control, strikes, if you mention socialism its you want to go back to the bad old days of the 70’s. Yeah some unions were out of control, and huge mistakes made, but we have gone way the other way now with no rights and the country basically just a rat race. We will be working till we die.
What exactly did Labour do to help the working man during their 13 year reign. Well they abolished the married mans tax allowance and they abolished MIRAS which again increased the tax burden. So much for Labour being for the working class.
If you’re in a 1 bedroom flat, I’m going to assume you’re single with no family living with you?
If so, had you thought of renting a room as a lodger? £300-400 pcm should do you with all bills thrown in.
ezydriver:
If you’re in a 1 bedroom flat, I’m going to assume you’re single with no family living with you?If so, had you thought of renting a room as a lodger? £300-400 pcm should do you with all bills thrown in.
Or just move to where property is cheaper. You’ll have to accept that you’re not actually worth £30k+ once you do though. You’re only worth that now because of the cost of living in the area. You can’t have the best of both worlds… well you can… but it makes you a benefit scrounger.
You could really take the ■■■■, and buy it at the discounted rate for long term tenants?
ckm1981:
The government have my full support on this,been a long time coming too.
Never once have they offered to subsidise my mortgage so why should other have there rent subsidised.
Not strictly true they have effectively taken interest off pensioners cash savings to subsidise overstretched mortgage holders with current, and ongoing, interest rate policies.
Also remember that when some politician is claiming the economy is fixed, it only will be when savings interest is 5-7%.
AlphaOmega:
Why should I be subsidising your housing costs when you get paid more than I do? Why don’t you just get a normal house?
Here here.
Own Account Driver:
ckm1981:
The government have my full support on this,been a long time coming too.
Never once have they offered to subsidise my mortgage so why should other have there rent subsidised.Not strictly true they have effectively taken interest off pensioners cash savings to subsidise overstretched mortgage holders with current, and ongoing, interest rate policies.
Also remember that when some politician is claiming the economy is fixed, it only will be when savings interest is 5-7%.
I’m not an overstretched mortgage holder.
Why does the op have an obsession with shoving it up arses?
In work benefits like tax credits cost me and you (the taxpayer) £30 billion pounds a year, the chancellor will look to save £12 billion from the welfare bill.
I feel sorry for the O/P as lots of social housing is not worth the market rent for one reason or another (usually the neighbours) however I like to see my taxes being spent on those who need it most, not lining the pockets of big business who pay slave wages to staff knowing the state will top them up through tax credits or subsidise rent for high earners.
Their should be a graded system where those like the O/P who just pass the threshold pay bit more and those who are well over it pay a lot more.
topmixer11:
looks like i will have too ask for one as from 2017 im going too be persecuted for trying too get on in life by finding decent work and paying too get it by obtaining licences etc ive been in my housing association home 20 years never claimed a bean in all that time ,paid my rent on time now because i earn 31 ,000 a year im going too be hit with a 70 quid a week increase in rent , by the looks of things ,i still have too pay bills etc pay for my car too get too work so im now going too look for a job under that figure above HOW IS THAT PRODUCTIVE MR CAMERON might as well sign on rather than try hard in life
Is that you Dozy ■■? 
This is exactly the same problem, just at a different level, that people who live on benefits have. Get a job on minimum wage, with bus fares and clothing bills, and your benefits get cut. When I was a manager I was totally fed up with people who came for interviews for a job they didn’t want because they would be worse off. Even more so if you take into account the cash payments for doing removals or working in a bar.
Kenny1975:
Carryfast:
The real Conservative definition of ‘bettering yourself’ means not relying on the state to subsidise your living costs especially if you’re earning £600 pw.However ‘if’ the OP was to say that even £600 per week isn’t enough to live on comfortably.Then just maybe his ( possibly justified ) argument should be that those 1970’s strikers weren’t the greedy militants they were painted as being and we’ve got an incomes crisis not a housing or benefits one.
Thats not the Tories parties way of thinking, its about screwing people over to make the rich richer.
Heaven forbid people are allowed affordable housing, rather than a market which is artificially overinflated. If it was really for people bettering themselves it would pump money into the economy building more council or HA houses, create jobs like a government should really job.
Instead its wanting to turn us all into wage slaves with unaffordable housing, whilst the government subsidises banks, big business in the form of government contracts, tax breaks and everything else.
The 1970’s is like a magic word the Tories have made, as soon as they are mentioned most people think of unions out of control, strikes, if you mention socialism its you want to go back to the bad old days of the 70’s. Yeah some unions were out of control, and huge mistakes made, but we have gone way the other way now with no rights and the country basically just a rat race. We will be working till we die.
There were actually two types of union militancy in the 1970’s.There was the Socialist version which said let’s strike to make a socialist utopia of low wages and zb high density urban council estates in a misguided attempt to fix the symptoms of the problem not the cause.
Then there was the other type who were striking for more wages as part of a Fordist ideal not a socialist one.
The latter would say let’s fight for higher wages so that we can buy a decent house in a decent area.
Rather than the former let’s keep Labour’s dependency culture going in the form of yet more high density zb council/affordable housing estates and/or in work benefits to subsidise low wage employment.
On that note there was/is a difference between misguided unions following the bs socialist line as opposed to ‘militant’ unions.
While being that the Labour lot obviously want to cover the country in yet more zb housing estates and airports etc then put it all in their own barren windswept heartlands in the North not yet more the south east. 
topmixer11:
Carryfast:
topmixer11:
MY RENT ITS 525 a month for 1 bedroom hardly subsidisedIn which case if you think you’re being ripped off why not put down a deposit on a house and get a mortgage like any other ‘militant’ working class of the 1970’s.
havnt got it lost my house in the thatcher era never recovered . i owe no one anything but do not have enough left after paying bills etc etc etc too even get a deposit in this day and age so hey ho wage cut it is no company going too refuse it are they !!!
So you earn £600 a week, pay £525 rent a month and you’ve nothing left after bills? What bills take up all of over £1800 a month? You lost your house in the Thatcher era and never recovered? Thirty years later, now earning £600 a week and still struggling!? Good lord
stevieboy308:
out of interest topmixer, do you think there should be a cap on what people can earn and still receive subsidised housing? if so how much?
There should be no social housing being that it is just another form of subsidy for low wage employment which is the real issue.The question then being is even £600 pw enough to afford a decent house in the private sector.
switchlogic:
topmixer11:
Carryfast:
topmixer11:
MY RENT ITS 525 a month for 1 bedroom hardly subsidisedIn which case if you think you’re being ripped off why not put down a deposit on a house and get a mortgage like any other ‘militant’ working class of the 1970’s.
havnt got it lost my house in the thatcher era never recovered . i owe no one anything but do not have enough left after paying bills etc etc etc too even get a deposit in this day and age so hey ho wage cut it is no company going too refuse it are they !!!
So you earn £600 a week, pay £525 rent a month and you’ve nothing left after bills? What bills take up all of over £1800 a month? You lost your house in the Thatcher era and never recovered? Thirty years later, now earning £600 a week and still struggling!? Good lord
He didn’t say he netts £31000pa. He earns that. So Gross, not nett. So it’s a reasonable thing to say after tax and NI for the average Brit, he’ll be looking at £1850 a month. This leaves say £1325. I know you’ll say your point still stands but worth getting the starting point right I guess. Sorry don’t like to pick holes. Big fan of the show 
I don’t have much of an opinion either way on the OP comment.
Freight Dog:
I don’t have much of an opinion either way on the OP comment.
Me neither. Dont understand enough about it to comment either way. Im someone who genuinely doesnt take a penny from the system. Not one iota.
All I will say is that if someone whos earning £31K is getting shirty simply because hes no longer getting financial subsidies then they need a reality check. BUT before topmixer jumps down my throat,I dont know enough about it so im not falling on either side of the fence just in case im not following it right.
But it sure is fun watching everyone else arguing about it
Broadly speaking I think if you no long have a need for social housing, then there is a moral responsibility to free up the accommodation for those that do. So, broadly, if you can afford to move on, really, you should.
This piece I’ve lifted from the Shelter website discusses need:
"All local authorities are free to set their own housing allocation policy as long as they agree to certain rules.
By law, local authorities must clearly set out procedures and priorities by which social housing will be allocated, and must make sure that information on these policies is made available to the public. Local authorities must also give the following groups ‘reasonable preference’:
people who are legally classed as homeless (or threatened with homelessness): the law classes a person as homeless when they have no home that is available and reasonable to occupy
people living in unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing
people who need to move for medical or welfare reasons
people who need to move to a particular location (for example, to be nearer to special medical facilities) and who would suffer hardship if they were unable to do so."
I don’t know the OP’s situation, and regardless how much he earns, most people spend most of their disposable income which is why we have become a nation hooked on easy debt.
ckm1981:
Own Account Driver:
ckm1981:
The government have my full support on this,been a long time coming too.
Never once have they offered to subsidise my mortgage so why should other have there rent subsidised.Not strictly true they have effectively taken interest off pensioners cash savings to subsidise overstretched mortgage holders with current, and ongoing, interest rate policies.
Also remember that when some politician is claiming the economy is fixed, it only will be when savings interest is 5-7%.
I’m not an overstretched mortgage holder.
You would be if interest rates were at market rates not forced dictated government policy rate.
Your 10 year fixed deal comes, and is essentially directly subsidised, from the government’s funding for lending scheme which funnels taxpayer’s money (ie some of the OP’s) to banks to lend against houses and prop up the country’s housing bubble and construction industry.
Based on his posting history, and this, the OP is a bell end and should not be occupying social housing on his income. The point about it being a disincentive to work harder is technically valid but there has to be a cut off somewhere.
However, I do think those in glass houses, with favourable mortgage deals, need to be careful about throwing stones at others sucking from the taxpayer teat.
The two are hardly comparable,I’ve borrowed X amount and I will be paying that amount back PLUS interest regardless of the rate.
The OP lives in a property which according to government reports he will be UNDER paying rent on market value of up to 40%.
So those with a mortgage pay fully what they lend back + interest whilst those in social housing enjoy paying massively subsidised rents,I understand where your coming from to a point but I disagree that the 2 are comparable to the extent that mortgage holders should be greatful to the government for us only having to pay back a X % of interest back.