Rayner cleared.

Monica, which body would assess incomes and apply/police such a system?

Much social housing is managed in the charitable sector, and people working in them and in councils stretched to the utter limit trying to manage repairs and applications and special needs demands. They couldn't possibly oversee each tenant in the way you suggest. And complicated by the fact that many tenants are on benefits or part benefits.

There are enough deterrents to making a better life, but they are only aimed at the working class, who must, in some views, be kept in their place. People want to see people 'who can afford it' pay for prescriptions, buses, healthcare etc when those who 'can't afford it' get them free, and now the suggestion is that people's rents should go up as their incomes rise too.

How is someone on a low wage supposed to get out of their situation if every pay rise comes with a penalty? Those on decent salaries don't find their mortgages going up unless they choose to buy a bigger house - why should renters? Many people would kill for a a secure tenancy that didn't cost a fortune in rent. We should be offering that to more people, and forming communities with people from all income groups rather than deliberately having a proportional reduction in disposable income for every hour's overtime worked or promotion gained.

By all means build flats, houses and bungalows of different sizes and rents, so communities are mixed, and I can see arguments for asking people to downsize when the time comes, to free up family homes. But that should be on a 'swap in the same community' basis, and the rents for the different sized places should be adjusted accordingly, so a pensioner moving to a small bungalow should pay less than a family in a larger house. I think it's good for children to grow up amongst people who know them, and for everyone to feel as connected as they want to to their locality, not worrying about having to move, or about the rent rosing all the time.

Sadly we are a very long way from a situation like that. As long as there are not enough houses to go round, and as long as there are no rent controls so that people end up trapped in insecure tenancies, such communities will stay way out of reach.

Those on decent salaries don't find their mortgages going up unless they choose to buy a bigger house - why should renters?
Obviously this happens if interest rates rise, but not every time someone works extra hours or gets a better job.

Communities with people from all income groups don’t necessarily work in practice Doodledog. People buying a house on a development want to know where the social housing is, and I could tell you some horror stories about the way affordable rented housing is often used.

Quite the same for privately owned housing too, I can assure you.
Tje main problems in the block where I am has come from tenants renting from owners who are letting places out, too.

Not people who are taking pride in their home and community.

MissAdventure

Quite the same for privately owned housing too, I can assure you.
Tje main problems in the block where I am has come from tenants renting from owners who are letting places out, too.

Not people who are taking pride in their home and community.

This is absolutely the case, I lived in one for several years. The flat owners renting out had no regard for the behaviour of the tenants. the owners often live abroad and cant be reached.

Yeah, the only inconsiderate neighbours are poor, obviously 🙄. Of course there are going to be issues where there are concentrated pockets of disadvantage, but that's my point - pricing people who want to 'better themselves' out of social housing is going to create, rather than mitigate problems like that.

Plus, if homes are rented from a council, they can evict anti-social tenants if necessary. Or could, if there were a will to create decent communities. I believe that it used to be the case that families were screened for particular estates and had to apply to move to the better ones, so they were proud of being accepted and looked after their homes and environment.

Germanshepherdsmum

Communities with people from all income groups don’t necessarily work in practice Doodledog. People buying a house on a development want to know where the social housing is, and I could tell you some horror stories about the way affordable rented housing is often used.

I feel sad you seem to lump all social housing tenants together. Well, shocked, actually. It's not hard to produce horror stories on any given subject but how offensive for a majority who wish to live like the rest of us but have special housing needs.

Germanshepherdsmum

Communities with people from all income groups don’t necessarily work in practice Doodledog. People buying a house on a development want to know where the social housing is, and I could tell you some horror stories about the way affordable rented housing is often used.

I live in a road which has a mix of privately owned housing, privately rented housing and housing association housing. There has never been any trouble. I've been here a long time, so I know quite a few residents. If I didn't know them, I wouldn't know which houses/flats are privately owned/tenanted or housing association.

Wyllow3 The DWP seem to manage when checking incomes for Universal Credit. Whys should it be any different for local councils or housing Associations.

I do not know whether some people realise it but rents go up. What is the difference between a council rent being raised by the rate of inflation for example, and one expressed as a proportion of take home income. people get paid for their work in order to pay their ent, food and utlity bills. It is in fact a much fairer system. If inflation went up 8%, some wages might go up much less, sould those with lower pay rises pay the full inflation cost.

Because thats what the DWP's work is - income checking and assessment. It's a lot of specialist work, and they are stretched to the limits, and things often go wrong. they also have the power to act - cut or increase benefits, legally.

*Who is going to pay for the extra staff needed to do what you suggest. How are they going to do it - monthly calls in person on all tenants demanding proof of circumstances? Demanding they come in regularly with proof of income? Expensive legal enforcers?

Especially for tenants whose incomes vary depending on hours worked

Councils and housing associations don’t have access to information about people’s incomes Monica. DWP and HMRC work very closely together, both covered by ministerial departments. I’m not in favour of either government level management of housing payments, or enabling access to HMRC information to LAs and housing associations (?And private landlords with tenants whose rent is paid for them).

M0nica

I do not know whether some people realise it but rents go up. What is the difference between a council rent being raised by the rate of inflation for example, and one expressed as a proportion of take home income. people get paid for their work in order to pay their ent, food and utlity bills. It is in fact a much fairer system. If inflation went up 8%, some wages might go up much less, sould those with lower pay rises pay the full inflation cost.

Of course Some People realise that rents go up - all the more reason to build council houses, from which the rents go back to the council, instead of into the pockets of landlords.

Apart from the practicalities of differential rents (as outlined by Casdon and Wyllow), the morality of trapping people by increasing rent in line with income is (IMO) very dubious, and the question of whether people are paid in order that they can pay rent etc or whether they are paid for a service to their employer is a philosophical one with which not all tenants will agree. If someone believes that s/he is working in order to earn enough to pay for their dreams (whatever they are, but possibly a deposit on a house of their own), why should they have to pay ever-increasing rent which keeps them short, because of a system that insists council tenants should have any increase in disposable income taken off them in rent?

When my rent went up, I bought my flat.
So, back to square one.

In many cases for the poorest rents would go up more slowly than inflation, so they would have lower wage rises.

The state is there to provide housing for the least fortunate in Society. What the tenants do withthei spare money is up to them. Some may save for a house, others way spend it on keeping their phone up to date, or buying books, or collecting football cards.

On your argument the same should apply to what people spend on food, or clothes or basic furniture.

On your argument the same should apply to what people spend on food, or clothes or basic furniture.

Eh? I'm not saying that expenditure should be linked to income - unless I've got it wrong that is your argument? I think that there should be wage and rent controls so that anyone working a full week (and those who are unable to do so) should be able to afford decent housing, and if their situation improves they should reap the rewards of their work, not have it means tested away. The role of the state is not fixed - by no means everyone believes that it has a role to provide housing or anything to the least fortunate. 'No such thing as society' etc. Tory mantra is that work should pay, and even the sick should be penalised for not working (if they are poor - if not, and they can choose not to work, others will pay tax to keep them in lunches etc).

What council housing did historically, was provide housing that meant that after two wars, this who'd lost their homes to bombs and slum clearance had somewhere decent to live. The houses were well built and the tenancies secure. They weren't for 'the least fortunate' - when Thatcher came to power a third of households lived in them, and there were controls on rents to protect private tenants from exploitation. Now only 17% live in social housing, and the alternatives are increasingly high rents - some of which go into the pockets of those who bought from councils at a discount or buying in the private sector, which is again a lot more expensive than it used to be.

Returning to a situation where people are not compelled to spend a high percentage of their income on a roof over their head would result in stability for families (and single people, who are so often overlooked when it comes to housing), allow them to settle in communities and act as a safety net for those going through divorce and other domestic upheaval. People would be protected (to some extent at least) from cost of living increases, and that may result in a lower crime rate, who knows?

After the initial build, rents would pay for maintenance. The fact that council rents are often lower than private ones is because 'market rent' just means what people are forced to pay, not that it is objectively 'fair', and because the fact that there are so few council houses means that those who do qualify for one are often on benefits and their rent is reduced accordingly. The full rent is not subsidised - it's just not paying someone else's mortgage or holiday bill.

I don't consider my parents to have been the least fortunate, by a long shot.
They just did manual jobs and didn't earn as much as academically inclined people.

My parents bought their council house. They had been in council housing for many years (since the end of the war). They did it after much consideration and discussion about if it was right or not.
The provision of council housing was about supplying decent quality housing to ordinary people which had proper facilities There was also the issue of Rachman and slum landlords who were criminals.