The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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?

no. i don't want to discourange those in social housing from taking advantage of the opportunities others take for granted. i'm not talking about kicking people out when they get a minimum wage job.

i'm talking about people in social housing not being given an unnecessary benefit when they have long since ceased to need it.

lower rents and security for all might be a good thing, but that isn't what this is about.

subsidised lower rents and security for a people who don't need them are only a good thing for the people who don't need them.

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

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.

well, the link you provided talked about total receipts from tenants vs. subsidy from central govt for expenses.

since social tenants would include tenants on LHA/HB it seems reasonable to assume the figures include HB/LHA. there is no clarification in the article, so your evidence is a statement by you.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no. i don't want to discourange those in social housing from taking advantage of the opportunities others take for granted. i'm not talking about kicking people out when they get a minimum wage job.

i'm talking about people in social housing not being given an unnecessary benefit when they have long since ceased to need it.

lower rents and security for all might be a good thing, but that isn't what this is about.

subsidised lower rents and security for a people who don't need them are only a good thing for the people who don't need them.

Not sure what you are babbling on about now. Social housing provides security of tenure to those unable to achieve it via other means at the point of allocation. What you are advocating is a bit like saying that we can do away with the NHS because they have successfully treated some people to such an extent that they no longer need it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, the link you provided talked about total receipts from tenants vs. subsidy from central govt for expenses.

since social tenants would include tenants on LHA/HB it seems reasonable to assume the figures include HB/LHA. there is no clarification in the article, so your evidence is a statement by you.

You need a better understanding of the nature of HB/LHA. It is a benefit paid to the individual based on their housing needs/affordability. It is not dependant on their rental tenure. So, LHA/HB is also paid to private LLs, which means they can justify higher unit prices, which inflates the rest of the housing market, which leads to larger equity for other owner/occs, who can use this equity to gain preferential lending rates for money they can then borrow to buy that new car/holiday/kitchen. Are you going to suggest that Ford/Thomas Cook/Moben are all taxpayer subsidised too?

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Not sure what you are babbling on about now. Social housing provides security of tenure to those unable to achieve it via other means at the point of allocation. What you are advocating is a bit like saying that we can do away with the NHS because they have successfully treated some people to such an extent that they no longer need it.

no, it's more like saying that once the NHS has treated you, you don't need to keep living on the ward at the expense of others.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You need a better understanding of the nature of HB/LHA. It is a benefit paid to the individual based on their housing needs/affordability. It is not dependant on their rental tenure. So, LHA/HB is also paid to private LLs, which means they can justify higher unit prices, which inflates the rest of the housing market, which leads to larger equity for other owner/occs, who can use this equity to gain preferential lending rates for money they can then borrow to buy that new car/holiday/kitchen. Are you going to suggest that Ford/Thomas Cook/Moben are all taxpayer subsidised too?

however you want to spin it, if money is raised through taxation, given to social housing tenants and paid to the social housing landlord, that is a social housing subsidy. there is nothing wrong with making that subsidy, but to claim that it isn't one is just silly.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, it's more like saying that once the NHS has treated you, you don't need to keep living on the ward at the expense of others.

Or that once the bandage has contained the bleeding, you don't need the bandage anymore and it can be removed?

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

however you want to spin it, if money is raised through taxation, given to social housing tenants and paid to the social housing landlord, that is a social housing subsidy. there is nothing wrong with making that subsidy, but to claim that it isn't one is just silly.

Then, following that rather tenuous "logic", everything that taxpayers money is spent on, both wholy and partially, directly and indirectly, is subsidised?

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

Ultimately, the nappies are still bought by the public purse...

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

Ultimately, the nappies are still bought by the public purse...

And further "subsidised" by their VAT free status, the same VAT free status enjoyed by new build housing, regardless of intended tenure. Subsidy everywhere, it would seem.