How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying

Not surprised about that

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Not surprised about that

fair enough

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

social housing is massively subsidised because
-if a market rent was charged then the government could reduce our taxes or spend the money on the NHS or building more homes or reducing HB etc.

by not charging a market rent we all pay extra tax : it is a subsidy.

Not making a profit really isn't the same thing as being subsidised. Apart from anything else, charging market rates would simply raise the HB bill, moving government money from one pot to another.

PasturesNew

Social housing should be issued and kept on the basis of Brownie Points. Keep your nose clean, don't be a nuisance, work full-time, do voluntary work, organising annual cleanups of grot-spots ... etc etc ... all Brownie points.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Not making a profit really isn't the same thing as being subsidised. Apart from anything else, charging market rates would simply raise the HB bill, moving government money from one pot to another.

if every single council house tenant would otherwise be claiming HB then that may be so.

BUt is every council house tenant in poverty, not just when they start their tenancy but for the rest of their lives?

no single parent who meets a partner?
no single parent whose kids grow older and go to school so the parent can work?
no unemployed person that ever gets a job?
no low paid worker who get promoted?

But yes, not paying the going rate for rent is a subsidy
-because you as a taxpayer pay more tax
-also because it is grossly unfair for people is similar circumstances who haven't been lucky enough to get a subsidised property.

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

if every single council house tenant would otherwise be claiming HB then that may be so.

BUt is every council house tenant in poverty, not just when they start their tenancy but for the rest of their lives?

no single parent who meets a partner?
no single parent whose kids grow older and go to school so the parent can work?
no unemployed person that ever gets a job?
no low paid worker who get promoted?

But yes, not paying the going rate for rent is a subsidy
-because you as a taxpayer pay more tax
-also because it is grossly unfair for people is similar circumstances who haven't been lucky enough to get a subsidised property.

You don't need to be in poverty to claim HB, even at the level rents are at present. If you raised social housing rents to market rates, far more people would have to claim HB, particularly in the south east.

For everybody whose financial position improves while a social housing tenant there'll be somebody whose situation worsens, whether because of redundancy, divorce or illness.

Where the unfairness lies between the social/private sectors is in security of tenure, not rent levels. The way to improve this is to give greater security to private tenants - we should always level up, not level down.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You don't need to be in poverty to claim HB, even at the level rents are at present. If you raised social housing rents to market rates, far more people would have to claim HB, particularly in the south east.

For everybody whose financial position improves while a social housing tenant there'll be somebody whose situation worsens, whether because of redundancy, divorce or illness.

Where the unfairness lies between the social/private sectors is in security of tenure, not rent levels. The way to improve this is to give greater security to private tenants - we should always level up, not level down.

yes if council tenants paid market rents then indeed some more would able able to claim HB : however the HB would exactly equal the extra rent charged so no overall change

however some council tenants would not be able to claim HB as they would have a higher enough income to be ineligible
so overall there would be an increase in government income
(yes there would be admin costs but they are already in the HB system so would be minimal)

I would be very surprised if for everyone with an improvement in circumstances there was some-one with a declining income : in general it is observed that as one gets older (at last until retirement), overall ones circumstances improve : people get promoted, gain experience, gain savings, children grow and become self supporting etc.

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes if council tenants paid market rents then indeed some more would able able to claim HB : however the HB would exactly equal the extra rent charged so no overall change

however some council tenants would not be able to claim HB as they would have a higher enough income to be ineligible
so overall there would be an increase in government income
(yes there would be admin costs but they are already in the HB system so would be minimal)

I would be very surprised if for everyone with an improvement in circumstances there was some-one with a declining income : in general it is observed that as one gets older (at last until retirement), overall ones circumstances improve : people get promoted, gain experience, gain savings, children grow and become self supporting etc.

The possibility of divorce and ill health increase with age and redundancy can happen to anybody. Many people in social housing work for NMW and have little chance of promotion and lots don't want it. Children will leave education but they may well not find employment and can be a drain on household finances for many years.

It really wouldn't be the money maker that you think it would - if you want greater equality, campaign for better security and (dare I say it) rent controls for those renting in the private sector.

ETA

If this were to ever happen and did make money, I sincerely hope that it would be invested in building more social housing, rather than resulting in tax cuts.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The possibility of divorce and ill health increase with age and redundancy can happen to anybody. Many people in social housing work for NMW and have little chance of promotion and lots don't want it. Children will leave education but they may well not find employment and can be a drain on household finances for many years.

It really wouldn't be the money maker that you think it would - if you want greater equality, campaign for better security and (dare I say it) rent controls for those renting in the private sector.

ETA

If this were to ever happen and did make money, I sincerely hope that it would be invested in building more social housing, rather than resulting in tax cuts.

well, at least you don't subscribe to the intergeneration package about 'generation rent' as you seem to believe that, on average the young are at least as wealthy as middle aged or older people.

Herzlos

PasturesNew wrote: »

Re under-occupation, that's because they don't build enough smaller homes that aren't [a] cramped disproportionately expensive If you want a 1-bed house round my way it'll cost you about £180-200k and you'll have a choice of one. If you want a 3-bed house it'll cost you £190-300k and you'll have a choice of 1001.

Very much this. Due to supply/demand the price difference between 1-bed flats and 2+ bed houses here is almost non-existant. Most new houses being built at 2+ bed luxury flats or 4+ bed luxury houses, and all are well out of the league of FTBs, as well as renters considering how often they have to let signs up (Easily 5-10% of new estates at any given time).

There really needs to be a huge increase in small social rental and owner-occupier properties, but that'll never happen because it'd push down rents and so many decision makers are landlords.