Variable rents, based on income is one way of dealing with this. When you sign the tennancy for a council or housing association home you agree that if your income goes over a certain level that you pay a higher, market related rent.

I think it is unfair to force people to move if they don't want to (although many are, for other reasons) and this avoids the very real problems of sink estates.

The additional rental income can be used to build more council/affordable housing, thus providing new homes for others that need them.

Difficult to police and enforce but non unrealistically so.

Satchers option does not seem unreasonable - and perhaps not as difficult to police as LA's have already been granted access to earnings information from HMRC.

Hot of the press - and an by way of an example of an elephant in my view as it has cost HMG's taxpayers some £20 bn to date.

Royal Bank of Scotland got £20 bn of the total £37 bn bail out for banks and building societies and yesterday revealed that some of the bail-out funds "may" have been out in bonuses to employees. HMG now own 83% of RBS who made a loss of £24.1 bn in 2008.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...nuses.html

Dear jgdoherty

You appear to be motivated by things other than blind hatred and what you read in the Daily Mail. This simply won't d-BENEFIT SCROUNGERS! Sorry, slips out every now and again.

And you call Brian a troll! It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to think that those earning over £100,000 a year shouldn't benefit from tax payer subsidised social housing - you don't have to be 'blinded by hatred', but then I guess you knew that already...

I agree Satchers suggestion could be the answer.
Come on Mr Cameron do something.

Baboonery

Thank you.

Although unsure about what message you have and to what benefit scroungers you refer.

jon14

Not sure, but thank you anyway - but I clearly missed who called Brian a troll (is he/she ?) and I am completely confused as to who you deem to hold a "perfectly reasonable point of view".

brian

Your issue remains a mouse.

How did I forget DerbyHillTop.

Different page.

Big thank you.

It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to think that it's unfair for those earning over £100k to be in receipt of subsidised housing. As you said yourself, it is perfectly acceptable that if the position of high earners renting LA housing needs some better degree of control, it could be important enough that new legislation be scrutinised and enacted.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not agree that high earners should certainly pay the market rate for council houses .

I am sure Roz would want them houses at Buck House.

brian

It's still a mouse - amongst many other mice for that matter.

100k may be a big number, but it depends how many adults children and generations are living of that. Say 3 generations (4 or more adults) plus 2 kids and total of 100k does not look so grand any more.

Should they become homeless?

Is that supposed to be a joke?

If that were the case a great reason for bringing back the community charge.

I should not worry DHT , this government is mostly talk with little action.

JDG
I like the Flag. Is it showing your support for Alec Salmond or Andy Stewart?

Ah Andy Stewart and the famed White Heather Club, new years eves have never been the same since.

Brian

Not really. No.

Johnc

Kenny Everett's show was far superior - and not forgetting Rikki Fulton - both sadly gone now.

jon14

DHT's comment is clearly understood by other respondents.

Eh? Nobody else said anything about it so I don't know how you know that. I knew what it meant, just couldn't think it was a serious suggestion!

"Johnc

Kenny Everett's show was far superior - and not forgetting Rikki Fulton - both sadly gone now."

I never said it was any good - just harking back to a simpler time

jon14

On re-examination, DHT's comments still seem entirely clear and reasonable.

As to your comment"...so I don't know how you know that. I knew what it meant,.....", - hmm - I gave up mind reading years ago, never really was any good at it and do not aspire to reading your mind either.

There are (at least) a couple of things I'd take issue with here.

Firstly, council and 'social' housing is not necessarily subsidised - take a look at this article for further info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/j....tenanttax

Secondly, as people have already pointed out, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have higher earners living on estates as it can save them from being exclusively occupied by people on benefits and earning low incomes. People with higher incomes living in council housing was not unusual in the days before this form of tenure became that of last resort.

I'd be interested to know how the figures, of how many high earners there are in council or HA housing were obtained. Councils and HAs do not routinely compel tenants to disclose their income. They would not know this via benefit claims, as said high earners would not be claiming benefits.

So can someone tell me how the number of high earners was arrived at?

Johnc

Thank you and sorry, my response now looks a little more direct than I intended.

As a child viewer of the "old-style" Hogmanay shows it was fascinating when friends and family would sing along or join in the recitation of poems. Memories that are warm and do belong to another age. In my time here in London I have become aware of the view that the Scots audience all seemed to be sitting around with empty glasses and no drink in sight, All highly improbable.

Kenny Everett and Rikki Fulton were of the next generation (and I cannot even claim these are in the modern age) but in Scotland in particular, both shows were transmitted around the time of the "Bells". Large numbers would wait to see both sets of these tv shows before going first footing or partying.