Should High Earners Be Allowed Subsidised Housing?
I have always felt that houses should be used to provide the maximum number of individual dwellings.
For instance, I don’t believe that people should own two houses, that they keep for their personal use. But if they want to, then they should not get any reliefs on the second house. In the past I’ve owned and lived in two houses and it doesn’t have too much to recommend for itself. Some may claim it’s nice to live in London in the week and go to their cottage at the weekend, but do they ever realise that that cottage probably causes someone to not have a house. If you live in two houses, then the second house should be taxed to provide subsidised houses in the area.
Buying to let is different, as you are providing a service of housing for someone else. And if you are successful, then you pay tax on it.
But what really gets me is those, who live in Local Authority or Housing Association properties and earn enough money to either rent privately or even buy their own house. The case of the ex-Labour Minister, Frank Dobson, reported in the papers today is scandalous. He should be booted out forthwith, so that someone else, who needs it, can have the property!
All of these abuses should be tightened up and hopefully the government is doing something about it. And while they are at it, they should be tougher on those, who illegally sublet their properties.
I should also say that sometimes, I feel guilty about having a reasonably large house all to myself.
To return though to the Dobson scandal! In my year at school, Animal Farm was the set book for GCE O Level. George Orwell was so right and it is fairly obvious, what his view of NuLabor would have been!
The Anonymous Widower 
I agree. Unless there is a very strong reason for two homes, then they should be either not allowed, or taxed. The only very strong reasons would be a family who lived a long way out of London but who had to spend long periods of time at somewhere like Gt Ormond St – but even then, they dont have to have two homes, they could stay in Ronald McDonald House. Or if one parent moves jobs through necessity, and the other parent cant move, or the children in in important exam years such as GCSE or A level.
Certainly, wealthy folk shouldnt be in social housing! If he wants to stay he pays the same rent as other tenants!
Although your house is bigger than you need, you have space to allow people to visit and I know that you encourage people to do that. And you can afford to pay your way, you arent living there on subsidised rent.
When we married we were living in a small flat in Shropshire, when we moved back to Lancashire we were entitled to jump the housing queue because we were moving into the area for work reasons. We were put in a lovely big house on a nice new council estate, a house we couldnt have afforded to buy on the open market. We were only there the length of time it took us to find a house which we could afford to buy, and then move into it. The house we bought was much smaller, and had a yard rather than a garden. But that then allowed the larger, cheapish to rent house to go to a family who needed it. We didnt and still dont really agree with council housing being sold off to tenants.
Comment by liz | June 19, 2011 |