The social cleansing of social housing.

[Louis MacNeice]

George Osborne wants to further reinforce social housing tenancy as a badge of economic (and moral) failure: Budget to cut housing subsidies for higher earners.

It will also increase demand in an already under supplied mortgaged housing market, while shifting spend from goods and services to servicing debt.

The policy is pure ideology; above average earners in social housing are wrong (they're not making the optimal neo-liberal choice) and need to be shown to be so, while the much greater number of social housing tenants on below average incomes need to be reminded of their place. And all those already mortgaged need the reminder to behave provided by a residualised and stigmatised social housing sector.

Not cheers at all - Louis MacNeice

 

[Belushi]

FFS they're misusing 'subsidies' again

 

[J Ed]

FFS they're misusing 'subsidies' again

Look at that uncritical use of the word by the state broadcaster.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a been a series on post-war housing BBC2 recently that used subsidy in this dishonest way throughout.

 

[toblerone3]

How are they going to force local authorities to implement this? This is going to go down badly in London.

 

[cesare]

People will turn down pay rises and/or ask for reduced hours if they're near the thresh-hold - increasing profit for employers and driving down wages. It's effectively means testing for social housing. There's also no incentive for councils and HAs to enforce it as the increased rents go direct to the Exchequer.

 

[DotCommunist]

increased ghettoisation, great.

 

[andysays]

People will turn down pay rises and/or ask for reduced hours if they're near the thresh-hold - increasing profit for employers and driving down wages. It's effectively means testing for social housing. There's also no incentive for councils and HAs to enforce it as the increased rents go direct to the Exchequer.

This is the bit which proves it's 100% ideological.

You could just about argue a case* for social housing being priced on an "ability to pay" basis, providing the extra money raised was kept by the council or HA and re-invested, but doing it this way appears to be simply another attack on social housing both in principle and in practice.

ETA * not saying I agree with the idea, so let's not get diverted too far down that road please

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Remember the huge campaign calling for this, and the election pledges? No, me either. It's pure 100% proof mendacity.

Seriously, how can all people of good will put aside differences and strategise for not having to put up with half a decade of these denizens of criminality?

 

[FiFi]

Remember the huge campaign calling for this, and the election pledges? No, me either. It's pure 100% proof mendacity.

Seriously, how can all people of good will put aside differences and strategise for not having to put up with half a decade of these denizens of criminality?

Unfortunately, during the election they didn't put any meat on the bones of their promises so the contents of the first budget was always going to be ideological

 

[crossthebreeze]

Its a push into right to buy schemes isn't it - anyone who gets half-reasonable income (and we can presume the thresholds will be reduced over time) faces an astronomical and unaffordable rise in rent or can get a mortgage to buy their home for a knock-down price. And, as pointed out, the money raised is going to the treasury not housing assocaiations and councils, so won't be spent on building new social housing or improving to existing stock. Basically its a way to destroy social housing.

 

[SpookyFrank]

FFS they're misusing 'subsidies' again

There has been some moves towards calling working tax credit a subsidy for low-paying employers, which it often is, but naturally they're responding to that situation in completely the wrong way by fucking with WTC instead of taking action to raise wages

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Its a push into right to buy schemes isn't it - anyone who gets half-reasonable income (and we can presume the thresholds will be reduced over time) faces an astronomical and unaffordable rise in rent or can get a mortgage to buy their home for a knock-down price. And, as pointed out, the money raised is going to the treasury not housing assocaiations and councils, so won't be spent on building new social housing or improving to existing stock. Basically its a way to destroy social housing.

In this aspect it's a re-run of the 1980s ring fencing of housing budgets which forced up rents for higher earning council tenants. And of course it has the same ideological drivers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

There has been some moves towards calling working tax credit a subsidy for low-paying employers, which it often is, but naturally they're responding to that situation in completely the wrong way by fucking with WTC instead of taking action to raise wages

Yep target WTC rather than legislating for a living wage, because its the low paid workers who are the problem, threat, drain rather than their low paying employers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[SpookyFrank]

Of course it's hard to argue that self-employed people are wilfully unerpaying themselves, but cutting WTC effectively punishes them for doing exactly that.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Fuck. This is going to hit my household directly.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's possible the council/HA won't bother enforcing it, especially if they know it will ultimately cost them yet more of their housing stock.

 

[eatmorecheese]

One can only hope. I'm below that threshold for London, but if they take my OH and stepdaughter into account (one working a low income wage, the other actively looking for work) we pass the threshold.

Is this part of a bigger 'carrot and stick' approach to lever people forcefully into the housing market and whittle away social housing stock at the same time? There was talk before the election of broadening right to buy to include HA's.

Fuck these cunts, seriously.

 

[treelover]

Look at that uncritical use of the word by the state broadcaster.

The BBC keeps saying "the chancellor 'has' to make cuts of 12 billion in the welfare budget"

No, he is choosing to do so, and the BBC should not make out it is an economical necessity.

 

[treelover]

Fuck. This is going to hit my household directly.

There are a fair few London based Urbs (and their families)who are going to be hit by this.

 

[weltweit]

Seems wrong, people who can afford their rents are to be charged more?

People who are living within their means are to be charged more?

What qualifies someone for social housing anyhow?

 

[scifisam]

One can only hope. I'm below that threshold for London, but if they take my OH and stepdaughter into account (one working a low income wage, the other actively looking for work) we pass the threshold.

Is this part of a bigger 'carrot and stick' approach to lever people forcefully into the housing market and whittle away social housing stock at the same time? There was talk before the election of broadening right to buy to include HA's.

Fuck these cunts, seriously.

No, like with child benefit it's based on individual income. If you all earned £39k each you'd be fine, if one of you earned £40k (and the others earnt nothing and depended on the £40k person) then you'd be in the shit.

But then, ideological bullshit policies tend not to be well thought through.

 

[scifisam]

There are a fair few London based Urbs (and their families)who are going to be hit by this.

Really? It's £40k for an indidividual, not a household. I think there are quite a few urbs earning above that but I don't think there's much of a crossover between them and the urbs living in social housing.

 

[Norwoodité]

Look at that uncritical use of the word by the state broadcaster.

It's almost as if what they're saying is true, and what you believe is ignorant nonsense.

 

[Belushi]

Here we fucking go..

 

[DotCommunist]

how long do we give this pranny then. Make your guess either in terms of posts or hours and the winner recieves a cash prize

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's almost as if what they're saying is true, and what you believe is ignorant nonsense.

Care to expand on why you think this might be the case?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[crossthebreeze]

Really? It's £40k for an indidividual, not a household. I think there are quite a few urbs earning above that but I don't think there's much of a crossover between them and the urbs living in social housing.

I've done a bit of digging - this from Inside Housing (but about the already-implemented £60,000 threshold which social housing providers can implement voluntarily so it might not be 100% correct): "The government defines a ‘household’ as covering residents named on the tenancy agreement and their partners, where they live in the accommodation. The two highest incomes in a household will be taken into account to determine whether it meets the threshold."

 

[likesfish]

i cant imagine theres many people on £60k plus in social housing but £30000 is just a couple in full time employment.
it just pushing people into right to buy

 

[toblerone3]

Have they not thought this through because this is going to cause a massive shitstorm.

Or are they just flying kites to distract from other (bad) stuff?