Council house? Not if you are on over £100k pa

sjaypink

donnajunkie wrote: »

thanks. alot of people seem to think they are paying for it out of their income tax. i am talking about people who dont live in social housing.

Well there are subisidies available to housing associations to build new homes and upgrade stock not up to regulation (originally I believe most of the stock bought from local councils was in need of upgrade).

As far as I know though, Gov. & Europe housing subsidies have fallen off the edge of a cliff, and so that is why many HAs seem to be 'coming to arrangments' (as an interested tenant the details of the deals never seem to be available!) with private developments.

I think most HAs work on a not-for-profit (and not loss!) basis where they live solely off their rental income. But also I believe there are some succesful profit making HAs, shareholders and all.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looking on a housing swap site, I see that 3 bed houses down here are available for anything from 75-125 per week.

That equates to £5,200 a year.

A similar house to rent privately will cost you £750 a month, or £9,000 a year.

Thats a difference of £3,800.

There is an argument to be had that if the rents were bought into line with private rents, many would dump their council properties and downsize, allowing us to pay less in housing benefits towards private tenancies, as there would be more stock available for families. Therefore the taxpayer is paying more than is needed to house people, simply because others are allowed to sit in 3/4 beds which they do not need.

Where is the actual subsidy Graham? Subsidy= Financial help so where am I being financially helped?. Just saying its subsidised because private rents are higher does not equate to a financial subsidy.
Your looking at it the wrong way round Graham, you could say private rents are far too high. For instance if my HA was paying out £180-00 per week in loan repayments and costs and I was only paying £90-00 rent then I can see the arguement but thats not the case at all. Like I said our house cost around £35k to build 20 years ago on land donated by the Parish Council we have paid over £70k in rent..So its wrong to say all Social Housing is subsidised.

The truth is some Social Housing is subsidised for a limited period of time until the building loans are paid off. People seem to be under the impression the tax paying public will subsidise all Social Housing forever and a day, this may be news to a fair few of you on here but its just not true....Many HA who built houses 20-30 yrs ago should/would be making a profit because believe me they spend next to nothing on maintenance..

Graham_Devon

donnajunkie wrote: »

if more people are moved into the private sector then rents would go up due to increased demand. if many of these people get hb then it means paying more hb due to the higher rents.

You are not putting more people into the private sector, you are moving people around. Were no inventing people in this scenario.

Take 20 families currently in 3 bed private rentals. Let's, for example, suggest those families are paying £600 a month through housing benefits. Their housing benefits, due to the family size, allows them a 3 bed house.

Were paying £12,000 a month in rent, through HB to these 20 families.

Now, let's evict 20 single people from their 3/4 bed homes. Give them housing benefit for a 2 bed. For a 2 bed, they get £500 a month (for example).

Move the larger families into the council homes, stop paying the £600.

We now pay £10,000 a month HB, and every family has still got a house.

To keep people in council houses where by if they were reassessed they would not get a home of the size they are in, we are paying more out in HB. That's subsidising, dependant on your view.

michaels

If the council is renting your house to you at £400 per month but it could rent it to a private tenant for £1200pm then you are receiving a subsidy of £800pm - if the council was charging what the property was worth other taxes could be reduced by £800 every month.

For example, consider a family with exactly the same circumstances as yours is now who rent privately the house next door (sold in the past as a rtb) for £1200pcm whereas by a quirk of fate you qualified for a council house at some point in the past and thus only pay council rent at £400pcm. In what way is it fair that you have a rent subsidised by £800 per month out of tax revenue whereas they do not?

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To keep people in council houses where by if they were reassessed they would not get a home of the size they are in, we are paying more out in HB. That's subsidising, dependant on your view.

Subsidising the individual or family in receipt of HB, not subisiding social housing.

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

Subsidising the individual or family in receipt of HB, not subisiding social housing.

I agree, it's not subsidising council housing per se.

But it is a cost of being unable to free up the underoccupied stock.

The two go hand in hand. Being able to free up the underoccupied stock would reduce taxpayers liability towards housing benefits by a signigficant percentage, as we'd be able to use what we've already paid for, for its intended purpose.

So if were having to pay more out, because we can't use our current stock to even half of it's extent, I'd suggest thats an indirect subsidy.

leveller2911

michaels wrote: »

If the council is renting your house to you at £400 per month but it could rent it to a private tenant for £1200pm then you are receiving a subsidy of £800pm - if the council was charging what the property was worth other taxes could be reduced by £800 every month.

If Private rents were in line with Social Housing rents then there wouldn't be a Housing problem .There you go problem solved

The vast majority of Social Housing was paid for by Taxpayers money.That money/loan in many cases has been paid back .The tenants in most cases are still paying rent so the fact is they are net contributors .The rent doesn't stop the day the build cost loans are paid off.

sjaypink

michaels wrote: »

If the council is renting your house to you at £400 per month but it could rent it to a private tenant for £1200pm then you are receiving a subsidy of £800pm - if the council was charging what the property was worth other taxes could be reduced by £800 every month.

For example, consider a family with exactly the same circumstances as yours is now who rent privately the house next door (sold in the past as a rtb) for £1200pcm whereas by a quirk of fate you qualified for a council house at some point in the past and thus only pay council rent at £400pcm. In what way is it fair that you have a rent subsidised by £800 per month out of tax revenue whereas they do not?

You are confusing the issues of government subsidy, true market value and 'fairness'

If a council or housing association house is being let for the value equivilent to keep it, and the providers additional obligations, maintained - under the affordable housing provision/ programme (forget what its called) this should now all be in place - than the property is not gaining from any subsidy.*

The fact that a neighbouring house (your figures are way out too, sorry to say ) is commanding a higher rent on the private rental market in order to meet the landlords obligations (and profit?) as his will be graeter due to the market force of only having 1 or 2 properties to maintain, then no, that may not be 'fair'.
It does not make the first house subsidised though

* The changes were brought in a few years ago- after review it was ordered that all HA & council properties should be rented at a similar value in line with size and location (as are private rented properties), they should also all now be, or be on their way to being, self funding. This meant many old council houses had their rents raised sharply

Graham_Devon

The cost of the house may have been paid for. But theres also a lot of staff and legislation to pay for.

The costs of a house do not stop the moment it's built. So it's disingenuous to suggest that council rents are therefore net contributions simply on the cost of the house build vs how much rent has been contributed.

michaels

OK - say the council was selling off its council house and sold it to the tenant at only 1/3rd of the market value to the current tenant - that would also not be a subsidy?

If the any part of the govt supplies a service for less than the market value then the buyer is receiving a subsidy regardless of the cost of providing the service. The govt could sell whatever it was at market rates and thus reduce overall taxation. Fairly open and shut case, the service is being subsidised and the taxpayer is paying for it. It the case of council housing it is patently unfair in that those receiving the subsidy are not necessarily any more needy or deserving than those who are not receiving it but are still paying for it via their taxes.

You are confusing whether there is a social need to provide housing more cheaply than the market does to some or all of the population with whether or not providing such reduced cost housing is subsidised or not.