The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

didn't make any derrogatory comments towards anyone - presumably you feel the need to try to paint me as a bigot to make your argument work.

Fair comment. I withdraw that remark. Please accept my appology.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the state should provide social housing to those who need it, noone with half a brain would suggest otherwise. but why should levy taxpayers in order to supply social housing to those who don't need it?

What "levy"?

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Fair comment. I withdraw that remark. Please accept my appology.



What "levy"?

obviously there isn't a "social housing tax", however we are all paying more tax because social housing is not efficiently utilised, and is not assigned to the people who actually need it (both in terms of wealth, and the size of the property required) directly affects taxpayers. the most obvious way is that people who could be in council housing are sitting in far more expensive private rentals which are paid for by LHA.

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But neither is social housing, in essence. It's funded by rents.

Though the last figures I found date for 2007, it indicated that around two thirds of social housing tenants claim housing benefit and this, with council tax rebates, came to about 19 billion pounds per annum.

I didn't find a figure on how much rental income social housing landlords receive from their tenants, nor the figure for HB expenditure in social housing alone, but it's clear that the public purse contributes greatly.

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

obviously there isn't a "social housing tax", however we are all paying more tax because social housing is not efficiently utilised.

How many more times do I have to say that social housing is not subsidised? If anything, it is the opposite. Maybe this will convince you?

Projections released to Parliament by the Communities and Local Government department have shown that in 2008/09 the housing revenue account could tip £194 million into surplus.

This means that tenants will pay £194 million more into government coffers via their rents than councils will receive to manage and maintain their homes.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=1449727

It's a little out of date but the figures have not changed much in the last couple of years.

chewmylegoff

Jowo wrote: »

Though the last figures I found date for 2007, it indicated that around two thirds of social housing tenants claim housing benefit and this, with council tax rebates, came to about 19 billion pounds per annum.

I didn't find a figure on how much rental income social housing landlords receive from their tenants, nor the figure for HB expenditure in social housing alone, but it's clear that the public purse contributes greatly.

yes, but someone claiming LHA/HB is doing so because they have low income / no income, and therefore whilst their housing is obviously being subsidised, there is a rationale for the subsidy (assuming LHA/HB are only paid out to people in need).

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

obviously there isn't a "social housing tax", however we are all paying more tax because social housing is not efficiently utilised, and is not assigned to the people who actually need it (both in terms of wealth, and the size of the property required) directly affects taxpayers. the most obvious way is that people who could be in council housing are sitting in far more expensive private rentals which are paid for by LHA.

I refer you back to the point I made in #24, which is equaly applicable.....

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you suggesting that homeowners, when they reach a certain level of "wealth", should be forced to buy a more expensive house? An interesting idea. I mean, it WOULD free up a lot of property for FTBs.

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

How many more times do I have to say that social housing is not subsidised? If anything, it is the opposite. Maybe this will convince you?



http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=1449727

It's a little out of date but the figures have not changed much in the last couple of years.

it is subsidised because (a) it is rented out below market value thus there is an opportunity cost; and (b) much of the rent received by councils is funded by HB/LHA and therefore the figures you quote are probably rather meaningless.

i'm not against subsidising social housing, it's not a bad thing. i would just rather that people who need it received it, and people who don't do not. in the same way i wouldn't want to see JSA being paid to people who have jobs...

Jowo_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

yes, but someone claiming LHA/HB is doing so because they have low income / no income, and therefore whilst their housing is obviously being subsidised, there is a rationale for the subsidy (assuming LHA/HB are only paid out to people in need).

I agree - it's means tested. It's just that I hear the 'social housing isn't subsidised by the taxpayer because of the rent the tenants pay' and wonder how this is so when the majority of social housing rent doesn't come from the employment income of its tenants.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

Though the last figures I found date for 2007, it indicated that around two thirds of social housing tenants claim housing benefit and this, with council tax rebates, came to about 19 billion pounds per annum.

I didn't find a figure on how much rental income social housing landlords receive from their tenants, nor the figure for HB expenditure in social housing alone, but it's clear that the public purse contributes greatly.

The public purse may well contribute towards the housing costs of those unable to afford to self-fund, but that isn't the exclusive preserve of social tenants, is it?

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I refer you back to the point I made in #24, which is equaly applicable.....

you're going to have to explain why the decisions that people choose to make with their own money in the private housing market is ever going to be relevant to this argument.