is social housing subsidised?

squinty

There has been a lot of post here focussed on the capital costs of social housing, and a feeling that this is subsidised.

For an alternative view take a look at the following site:

http://www.moonlightrobbery.org.uk/

Also take a look at the table at the bottom of the page. This is information from the DCLG that shows the weekly subsidy recieved from (postive) or contribution made to (negative) by each tenant by authority. (these are 2008/9 figures).

What this does show is that whilst there are some areas that benefit from the national scheme. there are many others who pay into the national pot. The overall net figure suggests that 2 million council tenants pay an average of £1.89 per week to subsidise other activities.

Wee_Willy_Harris

GracieP wrote: »

Yes that's what I said.

No matter how you dress it up, one way or another taxpayers pay for social housing. You seem to have a real problem with admitting that, especially of your quoted comments are anything to go by. I'm not sure why. Do/did you live in social housing and find it hard to accept that others subsidise/have subsidised you? Does it impact on your pride to admit it so you have to justify it in complex ways which ignore basic facts? I don't get it.

I lived in social housing for just over 4 years and have no problem with admitting we were in subsidised housing. All the fancy maths in the world doesn't change the fact that we were very lucky to live in a country which helps the lower paid get a leg up if they need it. We got to move from a small, privately rented, one bed flat into a nice 3 bed house with gardens at a very cheap rent but we could only do that because it was being subsidised by the state. I don't see what's wrong with admitting that.

Let's not make this a personal issue based on our own circumstances. That would only serve to narrow the debate. I'd rather keep sight of the bigger picture.

FOURCANDLES_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Let's not make this a personal issue based on our own circumstances. That would only serve to narrow the debate. I'd rather keep sight of the bigger picture.

I couldn't care less really as most social tenants pay tax anyway

Wee_Willy_Harris

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

I couldn't care less really as most social tenants pay tax anyway

ALL social tenants pay tax!!

FOURCANDLES_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

ALL social tenants pay tax!!

Correct but some home owners think they pay for everything under the son and everyone else is getting it free. My own opinion some seem to protest to much.;)

neverdespairgirl

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Cost and subsidy are two very different things.

they are indeed.

But in this case, how can you possibly say that the private sector isn't subsidising the public? It's ludicrous. They obviously are, via s.106 agreements.

neverdespairgirl

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It was abolished in 2000, and many current homeowners enjoyed the subsidy, the bebefits of which are, in many cases, being handed down to their children to help with FTB deposits.

Ah, found it. It went up to a £30k mortgage. Reduced rom 1988, abolished in 2000, as you said:

"Mortgage interest relief has been progressively reduced over recent years.

This started in 1988 when restrictions on loans that qualified for relief were introduced and continued through the 1990s when the rate of relief was reduced from the borrower’s marginal rate of tax down to 10 per cent. The Government has decided that now is the right time to complete the phasing out of the relief."

Definitely a subsidy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

they are indeed.

But in this case, how can you possibly say that the private sector isn't subsidising the public? It's ludicrous. They obviously are, via s.106 agreements.

That argument is very dependant on the negotiations undertaken between the parties involved. If the developer spends £60,000 on a unit build and negotiates a price of £60,000, then there is no real loss and no subsidy, simply a loss in overall profitability.

Of course, S106 represents a small number in terms of the units it produces for social housing.

ILW

Can we all agree then that social housing is subsidised, but in many (not all) cases it is a subsidy that serves a good purpose?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

That argument is very dependant on the negotiations undertaken between the parties involved. If the developer spends £60,000 on a unit build and negotiates a price of £60,000, then there is no real loss and no subsidy, simply a loss in overall profitability.

Of course, S106 represents a small number in terms of the units it produces for social housing.

Any business that sells at cost or below cost is maklng a loss on that transaction.