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

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I agree, but remember if a family is eligible for HB they will be paid it whether privately or socially housed, so although there may be some savings in moving around the tenants in line with housing requirement, it won't be as obvious as your previous example (which, also, presumed all 40 tenants were in receipt of HB?)

Graham_Devon

Maybe subsidy is the wrong word. But it's the word the government also uses.

I think it's fair to say that it's costing the taxpayer more than it otherwise would to provide tenancies to council house recipients. That in my mind goes back to a subsidy, as it's extra government spending to allow those in receipt of council houses to continue living in, and enjoying lower rents. But I can see how people would disagree.

Either way, it's costing the taxpayer a significant percentage more to house people, than it would if we could sort out underoccupancy. The people that benefit the most from this, is those in receipt of the lower rents (and probably BTL landlords). Call that what you like

globalds

I'm sure I commented on a thread similar to this last night.

Where did it go ? ....Evicted or just left of it's own accord ?

sjaypink

michaels wrote: »

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.

I think the difficultly is often the term council house too. You are assuming if a council rented its places for £10 more per week, everyone resident could have £1 knocked off their council tax bill. This isn't the case anyway because of ringfencing.

AFAIK there are hardly any councils left with their own stock. Those that are I imagine could not command typical average rents if they tried. And the differences should not be anywhere near as stark as your eample.

As most are now owned by HAs I don't see how they can be distinguished from BTLll A & BTLll B.

If HA is able to cover all its running costs by renting a 3-bed for £150, BTLll A (portfolio 10 houses) for £175, and BTLll B (just 1 rental) for £200, are any of them subsidised?

You can't say Tesco are subsidised for selling bread cheaper than your local baker, they just have lower costs per loaf?

Graham_Devon

Ok, council let house in Maidstone...
http://www.homeswapper.co.uk/ssl/homesearch_details.asp?Sesh=9418640593K135467126&language=English&pid=438613&totalcount=324&propertynumber=8&Adapted=False&Area=maidstone&AreaValid=True&Bung=False&Dis=5&EmpId=0&Flat=False&HsPost=&House=True&IsPost=False&IsPartPost=False&IsRefined=False&Lang=English&LetId=-1&Lim=False&Mais=False&MaxBed=-1&MinBed=3&Ons=&PNGaz=29156&PropId=-1&RentID=-1&SCSesh=9418640593K135467126&PropPho=False&PropGar=False&PropPar=False&2WayOnly=False&App=False

£108 per week.

Private rental within 1 mile. 3 beds, no garage, semi.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29543326.html

£198 per week.

Not sure what point this proves, apart from the large differences. I'm struggling to find any other word to replace "subsidy"

Right place, right time, one family / tenant(s) get to rent for £90 per WEEK less than another family / tenant, purely down to luck of getting into council in the first place.

The family / tenant in the council place gets to enjoy being £4,680 a year better off.

In all honesty, it's scandalous really.

lostinrates

sjaypink wrote: »

You can't say Tesco are subsidised for selling bread cheaper than your local baker, they just have lower costs per loaf?

Can't you argue exactly that? Aren't some of the goods loss leaders?

sjaypink

lostinrates wrote: »

Can't you argue exactly that? Aren't some of the goods loss leaders?

I thought that was just the Harry Potter books....

All I know is that if a housing provider can cover ALL their costs completely from rental income (or other private funds), they are not in anyway subsidised AFAICS, regardless of the (low?) rent they may be able to charge

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The family / tenant in the council place gets to enjoy being £4,680 a year better off.

In all honesty, it's scandalous really.

It is unfair.

But, if the private family can afford £800 pr month rent, should that not be enough to pay a mortgage? Not saying they should, as its all down to circumstance, but generally a family will not be paying out £800pm on a 3 bed rental by choice.

If they can't afford £800pm, and are receiving HB for the private rent, then they should be in social housing! It is a mess, but one which I honestly believe cannot ever be really sorted until HP come down and are left alone. No propping for political gain.

Failing that- if HP are left alone, and they stabalise at the prices, or ratios, that they are now, then I do think that social housing providers- like Tesco!- should take over the majority of the UKs rental housing stock. Bit communist though

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

It is unfair.

But, if the private family can afford £800 pr month rent, should that not be enough to pay a mortgage? Not saying they should, as its all down to circumstance, but generally a family will not be paying out £800pm on a 3 bed rental by choice.

If they can't afford £800pm, and are receiving HB for the private rent, then they should be in social housing! It is a mess, but one which I honestly believe cannot ever be really sorted until HP come down and are left alone. No propping for political gain.

Failing that- if HP are left alone, and they stabalise at the prices, or ratios, that they are now, then I do think that social housing providers- like Tesco!- should take over the majority of the UKs rental housing stock. Bit communist though

Agreed.

Nice to get to an agreement in a proper debate on this forum by the way!!

[Deleted User]

pleasedelete wrote: »

Actually I didn't have a choice. I was made redundant and am being remployed as a contractor through a limited company. How can that be not is doing what is fair or honest? It is the system that is wrong not me!

I worked in IT as a contractor via a limited company and I find this highly doubtful. £ 26 tax + NI? Even if you went down the typical route of paying yourself min wage and the rest in dividend you would still have paid more than that. Unless you can provide a better explanation I just can't believe what you have posted.


I also find this highly suspicious:

I have worked 70 hours a week for 20 years in a public service role.I was paid for 37. In the end I earnt a good salary after years of doing a very harrowing job which lacks recruits.

70 hours a week for 20 years? That's unlikely as it is, especially when the public sector seem to be paid in holidays, however given you follow it up with:

Part of the reason I knew 2 of the 3 new Mps was because of the charity/voluntary work we were involved in. So yes we are all awful people trying to rip off the public!

its hard to believe that either.

EDIT: The point raised was a general one, you have answered with what you claim to be your personal circumstances. Do you agree with the general point that these abuses should be prevented?