The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

So you are quibbling with the figures provided by the Government themselves? Do you think they have forgotten to take housing benefit into account, these highly paid professionals?

CLAPTON

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.

actually we are one of the richest countries in the world and one with one of the lowest rate of unemployment

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

So you are quibbling with the figures provided by the Government themselves? Do you think they have forgotten to take housing benefit into account, these highly paid professionals?

no, don't think they forgot. do you seriously think that HB/LHA has been stripped out of those figures? i suppose i should put a stupid smiley here now should i?

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Social housing IS distributed on the basis of need AT THE POINT OF ALLOCATION. Of course I support this. However, the cornerstone of social housing is to provide the same level of security as ownership to those unable to buy their own property. That means security of tenure. The alternative, which seems to be what you are leaning towards, is to completely ghettoise social housing tenants into short term contracts and insecurity. I would see that as a backward step for ALL of us.

As for benefits? There is an argument that benefits should be paid to all, with employment being no bar to claiming (much as we do with CB now). This would elliminate the barrier to employment that loss of benefits entails, reduce the complications/confusion of the benfits system and make it cheaper to administer. I'm not sure if I agree, but it is one argument.

Wee_Willy_Harris

CLAPTON wrote: »

actually we are one of the richest countries in the world and one with one of the lowest rate of unemployment

We still have a substantial number on wages low enough that the government has to step in to support many people/families and historically high levels of unemployment. How we compare with others makes little difference to that.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing IS distributed on the basis of need AT THE POINT OF ALLOCATION. Of course I support this. However, the cornerstone of social housing is to provide the same level of security as ownership to those unable to buy their own property. That means security of tenure. The alternative, which seems to be what you are leaning towards, is to completely ghettoise social housing tenants into short term contracts and insecurity. I would see that as a backward step for ALL of us.

if the purpose of social housing is to provide security to those unable to buy their own property, and therefore to place them on the same footing as someone who can afford to buy their own property, when the circumstances of the person in social housing change and they become able to buy their own property, they no longer need the government to provide them with security of tenure, do they?

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, don't think they forgot. do you seriously think that HB/LHA has been stripped out of those figures? i suppose i should put a stupid smiley here now should i?

Only if you put it by your own posts. I've provided evidence in support of my contentions, you have provided none.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if the purpose of social housing is to provide security to those unable to buy their own property, and therefore to place them on the same footing as someone who can afford to buy their own property, when the circumstances of the person in social housing change and they become able to buy their own property, they no longer need the government to provide them with security of tenure, do they?

I agree. But such is the nature of security of tenure. You seem to want to discourage those in social housing from taking advantage of the opportunities others take for granted. Lower rents and security are a good thing for ALL of us, are they not?

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

Only if you put it by your own posts. I've provided evidence in support of my contentions, you have provided none.

your evidence appears to be a statement that the highly paid government experts would definately have adjusted the figures for HB/LHA.

whoops, sorry i forgot

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

your evidence appears to be a statement that the highly paid government experts would definately have adjusted the figures for HB/LHA.

whoops, sorry i forgot

No, my evidence is the link I provided. What is yours? What evidence do you have to discredit that? I'm after actual evidence, not what you think.