What about the poor folk making 160k a year??

Phsycocan: What about the poor folk making 160k a year??

Just another example of the man cutting benefits to the 99%.

FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?

FTFA "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I'm going to go on a limb here and say badly written regulations?

Ah, socialism. See how well it works?

I don't understand why anyone earning over 100K per annum is in a council house. They should be there at the time of need for those that can't afford to house themselves. Hell, I don't understan why it is people think they should be able to live in them forever, or be given the option to buy them for peanuts.

That last one annoys the crap out of me.

I used to pay UK taxes, I subsidised their accomodation. But - when it comes to property ownership I have to try to save money to get a foot on the increasingly ludicrous UK property ladder, where someone that's been in a council house for a few years is suddenly offered the option to buy it for a huge discount, with previously paid council rent taken into consideration! Many of these were then 'flipped' for a quick profit...

Seems desperately unfair to me...

BigNumber12: Welcome to Obama's America.

You DO know that America isn't part of Britain anymore, right? I mean, granted, its only been about 220 years, so you might not have gotten the memo yet....

What about their monarchy? Are they making over 160k?

The Daily Mail would have covered this story, but it was too busy scouring over the police beats of the Southwest USA for wacky family disputes rather than pay attention to what was going on outside their office windows.

point51: BigNumber12: Welcome to Obama's America.

You DO know that America isn't part of Britain anymore, right? I mean, granted, its only been about 220 years, so you might not have gotten the memo yet....

1792?

jepah: FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?

I took it as the original subsidy they enjoyed (assuming they lived in the unit) plus the rent they collected from it.

Would have been nice to get an explanation in TFA though.

Yes, well, when you subsidize living, then prices go up. Which means you have to subsidize more, and prices go up. Repeat ad infinitum.

I am shocked - shocked to learn that the U.S. does not have a monopoly on stupidly and inefficiently redistributing wealth.

/shocked

point51: BigNumber12: Welcome to Obama's America.

You DO know that America isn't part of Britain anymore, right? I mean, granted, its only been about 220 years, so you might not have gotten the memo yet....

He's waiting for the fax to come through.

Hey, friendly Brits - help a confused colonist out: the article seems to be about sub-letting. So, are truly poor people getting council housing legitimately and then turning around and sub-letting, or are career landlord types somehow managing to get thier hands on the houses and renting them out? Former seems "OK" (loopholes and all that), the latter is a scam.

jepah: FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?

London.

Gothnet: I don't understand why anyone earning over 100K per annum is in a council house.

They probably got the council house way back in the 70's, when 30% of the population lived in one. They've always lived there, they didn't want to buy it and now have managed to earn a high salary. It's unfair and they shouldn't be subsidised, but I doubt there are many people in that situation. The money paid to them pales in comparison to the billions paid to subsidise private landlords and developers.

jepah: FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?

About 8 years ago a friend and I were renting a flat in central-west London. It was about 650 square feet and the rent per month was ~£1,500. This was an expensive part of London but not the most expensive. Renting an entire house in such areas would run into thousands of pounds a month.

While many council houses are flats in council estates there are a lot of places where the council owns full houses in very nice areas. It's certainly possible that people are in houses like this that could be rented out for astronomical rents, although they represent the extreme minority of council tenants.

It is also possible they meant to say 'month' rather than 'week'.

Abuse of programs intended to help the truly needy is not unique to the UK. Have none of you ever heard of New York City's rent control laws? There are people who live in Manhattan who pay very low rents only because they have managed to stay in their apartments for a very long time, even though they could well afford to pay market rate. Former Mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, occupies an apartment in Greenwich Village on which he pays well below market rate.

These programs are enacted to help society's most vulnerable. Initially, reasonable rules and restrictions are enacted to make sure that there is no abuse or cheating. Eventually some 1% sociopath decides that he wants the land, building, whatever. He can't just pitch granny out into the street straight away because of pain in the butt public opinion. Instead he has his politician whores change the rules to ensure that the social welfare system will be abused and ultimately fail. At that point he gets his media butt-boyz, like Mush Limpblow, to get all outraged and such about the abuses of socialism. Most of you nitwits eat it up with a spoon and next thing you know granny, the legless war vet and that severely retarded kid are living behind the dumpster at 7-11. Mr. 1% job creator gets a bunch of tax incentives and subsidies to build new housing that's bought up by kleptomaniac Russian expats and shady Israeli "businessmen" The rest of you get a tax increase.

It's as easy as taking candy from a baby.

Property in London can be that expensive - 1000 pounds a week only gets you a 1000 sq ft 1 bed apartment in some of the nicest areas:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-32366560.html

Unlikely to be much social housing right where that one is, but I can see larger council houses in slightly less nice areas going for as much.

Is this the M.P.L.A
Or is this the U.D.A
Or is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the U.K or just
another country
another council tenancy

Housing shouldn't be subsidized period, imho. But if it is, it should only be for people who are dirt poor, as in making only a few tens of thousands of dollars per year at most. Anyone making more than should be responsible for their own problems. Government equates to waste, so supporting people via the government instead of via local charities means 40-50% of the money spent is really used to cover the salaries of overpaid bureaucrats. Then much of the rest goes to undeserving people.

jepah: FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?


It's Europe. They use commas for decimals.

/it's a thousandth of a pound sterling

So, when they eliminate the undesired subletting - the rents in the area end up going up because of less available leases overall. Will surprise be feigned at this result after?

SwiftFox: So, when they eliminate the undesired subletting - the rents in the area end up going up because of less available leases overall. Will surprise be feigned at this result after?

the council already sets rates based on income. there is no free market here. some get houses for free.

SwiftFox: So, when they eliminate the undesired subletting - the rents in the area end up going up because of less available leases overall. Will surprise be feigned at this result after?

How about : They evict the subletters, terminate the leaseholds of the lessees, and rent the rooms out to the people on the wait lists based on time AND income AND Job location.

When you run out of people on the wait list, contact taxpayers making below a minimum threshhold of income with more than five years local residency who live in the areas around the estates and offer them a place on the NEW waiting list.

Offer seven year leases ONLY. At that point your subsidization model will be re-evaluated, and you may not be offered a place in the same estate (or any estate, if you've won the lotto, or gotten a huge legal settlement, or your children have all left the nest, or you married someone who had property outside the estate.

Basically, the estates should be for those who are in need of temporary housing and young, or who are old with marginal pensions, or who are unable to earn. Only 1/3 of the units should be family centric (3- or 4- bedroom) with the majority of them being 2 bed apartments or less.

They also pay $65,000 a year for a slut with 5 bastards, all she ha to do is lay on her back with her feet in the air and let some smelly old tramp root around in her koochie.

Stick around, Amerika, it is coming your way soon.

Bad_Seed: jepah: FTFA - "And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

I know London has high rent but where the fark has "market rate" of council rates + $1500 a week?

London.

London.

/ Did someone say that already?

// Why does anyone live in London?

/// 30 mins by train from... errr... London