is social housing subsidised?

chucknorris

tomstickland wrote: »

If they didn't have to build the social housing they could sell the houses a bit cheaper to make the same profit. There is competition between builders and they cannot just charge "the maximum they can get for them".

What would happen would be that the land would cost more. Developers would make more revenue but the land cost is a residual calculation:

A simplified calc would be:

GDV (gross development value) - (required profit + build cost + professional/other fees) = land cost.

So they would sell for more but pay more for the land because other developers would be bidding for the land too.

Wee_Willy_Harris

terryw wrote: »

The change is that builders are compelled to build social housing as a condition of planning permission. This was not the case in the past.

Developers always have (and always will) sell their properties for the highest possible price. Land costs are not a factor in that process, but they do impact on the developers profit.

tomstickland

Yeah, and if that price is fixed and they have to build more social stuff then they'll cut costs somewhere. Affecting the people who pay for the houses.

Wee_Willy_Harris

tomstickland wrote: »

Yeah, and if that price is fixed and they have to build more social stuff then they'll cut costs somewhere. Affecting the people who pay for the houses.

Being motivated by profit, I can assure you that developers have no costs that aren't already minimised as much as possible.

neverdespairgirl

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Developers always have (and always will) sell their properties for the highest possible price. Land costs are not a factor in that process, but they do impact on the developers profit.

Thereby the private sector is subsidising social housing.

FOURCANDLES_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Thereby the private sector is subsidising social housing.

OH yes OK, public subsidise most things in one way or another very great full and all that .oooops said I would not comment on social housing again

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Thereby the private sector is subsidising social housing.

The developers are accepting a cost on their developement.

squinty

tomstickland wrote: »

My opinion hasn't changed.
Section 106 demands mean that a developer has to build social housing to get planning permission. This is a cost that they have to bare, and they will try to up the prices on the private stuff or cut costs somewhere to cover it.

You do realise that a Housing Association would buy these properties. They are not gifted.

GracieP

princeofpounds wrote: »

Now here is the disclaimer - I am not saying social housing is bad. It may even be the best use of capital when considering the costs involved in having to house people in other manners. But what I am absolutely clear on is that it IS subsidised.

Subsidy is not a dirty word. We subsidise all sorts of things - healthcare, education, housing, transport, benefits for single asylum seeker mothers with families of ten and so on. But ALWAYS we must consider taxpayer's money as our own money and spend it in an optimal way, even if that means not spending it at all.

:T:T:T

Spot on. I'm not at all opposed to social housing, especially in cases where it is needed but I'm opposed to pretending that it doesn't cost the taxpayer money. That is patronising, ungrateful and disingenuous.

Wee_Willy_Harris

GracieP wrote: »

:T:T:T

Spot on. I'm not at all opposed to social housing, especially in cases where it is needed but I'm opposed to pretending that it doesn't cost the taxpayer money. That is patronising, ungrateful and disingenuous.

Absolutely. Social tenants should be forced to crawl on their bellies when they leave the house, tugging forlocks as they go. Those in the private sector should only be addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am" at all times and direct eye contact should be avoided. A few lashes with the riding crop should put them in their place.

Of course, if we are talking taxpayer subsidy, a far larger amount goes towards the private sector in the shape of rents, which encourage and support the buy to let market, which inflates house prices enabling owner/occs to realise that extra capitol in their property and convert it into a tacky new kitchen. Perhaps those people should be equally grateful.

And, of course, lets not forget that anyone paying a mortgage prior to April 2000 was recieving taxpayer subsidy in the form of MIRAS. Perhaps anyone who benefited from this taxpayer subsidy should have to identify themselves via a badge of some kind, so that they can have every opportunity to demonstrate just how grateful they are.