The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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?

and the two reasons for that are: (i) there is not enough social housing and (ii) the social housing stock is not efficiently utilised.

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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?

I'm not arguing around the receipt of housing benefit/LHA for low income tenants, private or social housing.

What I did is challenge your assertion to another poster that social housing isn't a taxpayer funded asset because it's funded by their rents.

The taxpayer pays billions of pounds to subsidise the rents in social housing.

So it would be great to understand the ratio of rental income received by social housing landlords, which part is from the public purse, and which part is from the tenants own pocket.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

I was responding to the statement......

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.

...... by pointing out that the same argument could be used towards owner/occs deciding to stay in their cheaper property when their wealth dictates that they could afford a more expensive one, thus denying the housing market the availability of cheaper properties that many FTBs desire as an alternative to renting. The most attractive alternative for FTBs who cannot quite reach that first rung on the ownership ladder is the security offered (and the possibility of RTB) by social housing.

Surely anyone can understand that cheaper house prices, particularly at entry level, will reduce the pressure on social housing as a viable alternative?

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

and the two reasons for that are: (i) there is not enough social housing and (ii) the social housing stock is not efficiently utilised.

No. The reason why so many are funded by HB/LHA is that we have a low wage, low employment economy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

I'm not arguing around the receipt of housing benefit/LHA for low income tenants, private or social housing.

What I did is challenge your assertion to another poster that social housing isn't a taxpayer funded asset because it's funded by their rents.

The taxpayer pays billions of pounds to subsidise the rents in social housing.

So it would be great to understand the ratio of rental income received by social housing landlords, which part is from the public purse, and which part is from the tenants own pocket.

And I'm challenging your assertion that LHA and subsidised social housing are in any way directly related. I imagine that a fair percentage of nappies are bought by people in receipt of one benefit or another. Your argument suggests that the nappy manufacturing industry is taxpayer subsidised.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. The reason why so many are funded by HB/LHA is that we have a low wage, low employment economy.

semantics, thats the same as my point (i)

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I was responding to the statement......



...... by pointing out that the same argument could be used towards owner/occs deciding to stay in their cheaper property when their wealth dictates that they could afford a more expensive one, thus denying the housing market the availability of cheaper properties that many FTBs desire as an alternative to renting. The most attractive alternative for FTBs who cannot quite reach that first rung on the ownership ladder is the security offered (and the possibility of RTB) by social housing.

Surely anyone can understand that cheaper house prices, particularly at entry level, will reduce the pressure on social housing as a viable alternative?

yes, lower property prices would ease the pressure on social housing. however, as far as i am aware we do not live in a totalitarian state.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

yes, lower property prices would ease the pressure on social housing. however, as far as i am aware we do not live in a totalitarian state.

Then we both agree on the retention of secure tenancies for social housing as they currently stand. Good.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

semantics, thats the same as my point (i)

It's not just semantics. People claim LHA because their income is too low to afford to fund their accommodation.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Then we both agree on the retention of secure tenancies for social housing as they currently stand. Good.

yeah yeah. well i wouldn't change anything retrospectively anyway. going forward the situation should be sorted out, there should be no secure tenancy for life in social housing because as personal circumstances change so does need. obviously you don't agree that social housing should only be allocated to those that need it, fair enough. presumably you think we should all receive all benefits as well.