The CIH inhabit the proverbial cloud cuckoo land. This letter is so ridiculous it is genuinely laughable as this one excerpt proves.
"if someone can easily afford to pay more for their rent then shouldn't we think about asking them to do so - especially if this means we could use the extra income to make someone elses rent cheaper."
So, the CIH want means tested social housing then!! This attempt at explanation of their paper is more risible than the original and shows naivete in the extreme. This is far, far more than the perverse incentive it was labelled by Adam Sampson of Shelter.
Then take the second part of that extract. CIH want to charge Mr Smith more so he can subsidise Mr Jones! Cloud Cuckoo Land is paying this explanation a complement!
What happens if Mr Smith loses his job? Does he rent decrease and then lower paid Mr Jones subsidise him? Or has Mr Smith by paying a higher rent overpaid his account as with some mortgages and can claim a rent free period? Anyone who has ever dealt with arrears or with HB can see the logistical practical nightmare of such a proposal never mind the moral reprehensibility of it.
CIH should focus on a relatively and comparatively simple aim. Make its member landlords provide homes to a decent standard and nothing else. If that aim was achieved all of the 'additional' roles it ascribes to its own remit such as housing providing a stable base for employment, general wellbeing and all others would flow. Rather than insisting upon that it chooses to release pie in the sky and ill-though out proposals seeing itself as some form of (delusional) social pioneer that can change peoples lives.
Or in their terminology if their "desire to see housing as much more than just bricks and mortar" holds good, then ge the bloody bricks and nortar bit right first! Walk before you can run!