The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

geri1965_2

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're waffling now so I will assume you don't have any evidence at all.

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

You can draw any consumer goods and services you like into this argument or sidestep into social housing allocation policies.

Nothing can detract from the fact that social housing tenants do receive billions of pounds of public subsidy towards their properties and don't actually fully fund the build, maintenance and management of the stock through the rent as you have claimed - the tax payer picks up billions of the cost each year.

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

You're waffling now so I will assume you don't have any evidence at all.

i'm baffled by your approach. you have posted a link from a social housing periodical, which makes no reference to adjusting the figures for LHA/HB and you have simply asserted that the figures must have been adjusted, in the context that LHA/HB would clearly be included in receipts from social tenants (hardly contraversial to assert as much).

i might as well just put a page on wikipedia and stick my own numbers in, it would prove as much.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

you can extend the argument like that if you want to. it still doesn't get away from the fact that social housing is subsidised by LHA/HB (and by being rented out at below market value). there's little point trying to argue it isn't. you might as well try to convince me that the sun doesn't exist.

purch

Nothing can detract from the fact that social housing tenants do receive billions of pounds of public subsidy towards their properties and don't actually fully fund the build, maintenance and management of the stock through the rent as you have claimed - the tax payer picks up billions of the cost each year.

That may be the reality, but it isn't what Social Housing is meant to be.

Social Housing is meant to provide affordable rented housing. The fact that so many tenants require HB is more a reflection of our current society and economy, than it is of the sector itself.

It is not a deliberate policy of Social Housing Landlords to receive some or much of their rent from the public purse.

Why there has to be a stigma attached to social housing tenants ( or tenants in all sectors for that matter ) is also a sad reflection on our society.

Apparantly the purchase of a property is now considered the correct path to follow, and those that choose not to follow that path are considered less worthy.

The problem is, even if all social housing was occupied by wage earning people who paid the rent from their earnings and no HB was claimed, they would still be considered a sub species by many of the property owning cultists.

Margaret Thatcher was a good PM, but for creating this divide in our society she has much to answer for.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you can extend the argument like that if you want to. it still doesn't get away from the fact that social housing is subsidised by LHA/HB (and by being rented out at below market value). there's little point trying to argue it isn't. you might as well try to convince me that the sun doesn't exist.

I won't try and convince you, but.......

Social housing at £322.92 pcm
https://www.pinpoint.org.uk/Property/FullDetails.aspx?id=850519

Private rented at £265pcm
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-32917976.html

Both 2 bed houses, same town.

So, who subsidises who?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

You can draw any consumer goods and services you like into this argument or sidestep into social housing allocation policies.

Nothing can detract from the fact that social housing tenants do receive billions of pounds of public subsidy towards their properties and don't actually fully fund the build, maintenance and management of the stock through the rent as you have claimed - the tax payer picks up billions of the cost each year.

Then why are private sector rents CHEAPER than social housing in some areas?

purch

It was a policy of the previous Government for social housing rents to meet an allocated "target" rent by 2012 or 13.

This is presumably why social housing rents have been increasing by RPI plus 2% or more for the last few years.

I wonder if non social rents have increased by such magnitude over the same period ??

purch

Both 2 bed houses, same town.

Yes, but remember the "social housing" is only rented by people on benefits, whilst the private renters are all hard working members of society, according to the house buying cult. :rotfl:

Brallaqueen

I'd like to see social housing offered for a fixed term (5 years?) rather than on material wealth. 5 years is a decent amount of security and it sidesteps the issue of incentive to better oneself. Possibly offer incentives to thoe who wish to leave thier allocation early or downsize?