Rich fckers earning over £100,000 to lose council houses

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Wordsmith, Jun 4, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    Sad to read this in the Daily Telegraph:

    Rich to lose their 'subsidised' council homes - Telegraph

    If you earn over £100,000 then the Tory's are going to remove your right to have a council house.

    About bloody time too - council houses are for those in real need, not people earning three and a half times the average wage. Smart politics as well - who's going to stand up and say its wrong to take away a council house from someone earning £100,000 and give it to someone in real need.

    Hits a pretty good target too...

    About time that cnut stopped sponging off the state.

    • Like Like x 4
  2. Bob Crow is a cnut of the highest order - allegedly.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SO the party of merit, rewards hard work and endeavour how?
  4. Bob Crow was one of Osama Bin Laden's cronies - allegedly.

    OBL was considering deploying a dirty bomb on American soil but the biggest of those he could have utilised would have been the fearsome weapon used by the RMT – "The Dirty Bob.”
  5. msr

    msr LE

    By giving to the neediest in society?
  6. SO they tax the richest paid supported the minimum wage and still do so, give rights to the lowest paid? Nope they evict people who have bothered their arses to get a good job.
  7. I'm sure none of these people live on sink estates like Broadwater Farm, or Stonebridge, and some council houses are very nice indeed, ask a Somali in Chelsea.

    The solution would perhaps be, to make a list of these high earners, make a copy, send one to HMRC, and post the other in the relevant area.

    If they are popular, well liked members of the local community, with no tax problems, they can stay. If not, natural chav selection and the tax man will sort it out, to everyone's satisfaction.
  8. the number of rich ******* in council housing is minisucle although given london prices possibly higher than most people would imagine.
    much as passing a specific law targeting bob crow would be fun.
    how exactly are they going to know who earns what?
    unless your on housing benefit council does'nt know.
    This is either a council talking tough or somebody with the eye on a nonjob going round and checking every tenant who is not claiming any benefit to see how much they are earning.
    watch right to buy rates rise slighty as people buy rather than lose their home so not really helping matters.
    some of the eproblems of council estates have been caused by only housing the most neediest you get a ghetto 9 families working one family not they tend not to be too much of a problem. other way round and you get massive problems
  9. Looks to me like they're evicting selfish twats who don't need council houses and can't be bothered to find a different place to live. Nothing wrong with that.
  10. IMHO the entire concept of state subsidised housing is a mistake. All housing should be leased at the market rate and the tax and benefits system should enable people to afford that. So raise council rents, the well off pay more and the poor claim housing benefit. This avoids the unpleasantness of evicting people but also eliminates the unfairness of some people getting a subsidy they don't need. It also avoids the current all-or-nothing situation where you either have a council house or you pay your own way.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. What disgusts me most about the Bob Crow statement is that the arrogant prick "makes no appologies" for living in a council house. When the evicition (it will more than likely come down to an eviction as he will milk the system for all it's worth and not concede defeat) comes, this sponger will more than likely quote the human rights act or try and squirm his way out of it. I will be quite interested how he funds his legal costs while he fights to the bitter end. I'm guessing legal aid.

    Some animals are more equal than others, eh?
  12. That's because you haven't looked closely enough. They are talking about a household income of £100,000 not an individual income. A family with four wage-earners on average wages will fall into that bracket, so do you throw all four out when the kids bring their first pay-packet home?
  13. Interesting thought- I'll get back to you on that.
  14. You're never happy you lads are you? Whining like **** again over what? At least these people are paying their rents. You'll whine like **** if some 'foreigner' or unemployed single mum gets one of these houses (which they won't as no one is leaving) and the tax payer has to foot the bill. Where in the rental agreement (a contract) does it say that you cannot have a council house/flat if you earn X amount per annum? I think you'll find that it doesn't. I think that you'll find that the 'contract' is an agreement to maintain the property in an agreed condition and to pay the rent by the due date. Nothing more. I also think that you'll find that this is nothing but another attempt by a failing party to try to gain some control over issues it actually has no control over. Any council who tries to evict a law abiding, rent paying tenant will find it's in breach of its contract, and that'll cost you (the tax payer) when the plaintiff wins (and they will). This 'headline' is nothing more than an attempt to embarrass people into moving. Well, if they aren't embarrassed by it, they'll be staying and there's **** all that the buffoon Cameron or any of his mates can do about it. 'Ministers are prepared to change the law'? Really? Let's see if they can do so retrospectively.

    'Rich *******'?'s a terrible thing.
    • Like Like x 4

  15. Round here the rent on a four bed house is between £600 - £800pcm. If a family of four each earning average wage can't afford that then they need to give some luxuries up.