Should better off council tenants receive subsidy

AdrianC

Doozergirl wrote: »

Social Housing is not subsidised by anyone

Really?

Social housing is a profit centre - or, at least, revenue neutral - for local authorities? Somehow, I doubt that. A quick look at my own council's accounts shows that Housing Services cost £55.9m last year, and raised revenue of £52.6m, leaving it as a net cost of £3.3m, an increase from £3.2m the previous year. Given recent population figures, that's a subsidy of £17.50 per capita or £42 per household on average.

Marvel1

Right to buy needs scrapping.
Come on government, general election get it sorted.

TheGardener

AdrianC wrote: »

Really?

Social housing is a profit centre - or, at least, revenue neutral - for local authorities? Somehow, I doubt that. A quick look at my own council's accounts shows that Housing Services cost £55.9m last year, and raised revenue of £52.6m, leaving it as a net cost of £3.3m, an increase from £3.2m the previous year. Given recent population figures, that's a subsidy of £17.50 per capita or £42 per household on average.

Does it say the CT payer subsided it? Our local council show a similar account - expenditure greater than revenue - but the CT payer had nothing to do with it - environmental street improvements funded from the land fill tax made up the difference. Most HA's and councils have cost neutral housing revenue accounts.
How is social housing any more 'subsidised' than private landlords pocketing £££££'s of housing benefit paid out to working tenants who can't afford the eye watering private rents?

Cash-Cows

Concerned75 wrote: »

I'm just wondering the views of members on here regarding council tenants subsidised despite in a reasonable financial situation.
There was a lot of hoo harr regarding the bedroom tax and whether tenants on their own should live in a smaller property. I personally don't think anyone should be removed out of their council house because their finances have increased, but I do think they should be given the option to buy or certainly pay the going rent for that property/area.
Why should people be earning £100k as the trade Union was and still subsided in their council house by min wage taxpayers??
An injustice that needs a reform. Wouldn't go a miss in this years election either going forward!
Constructive comments welcomed.[/QUOTE

Social housing is a scarce resource. As such if a person's circumstances have improved to the point they can afford to live elsewhere or in a smaller house then they should be forced to do so. Whether the forcing is by a physical move or one which involves just paying standard market rents is less clear cut. Either way the country cannot afford to allow the few houses there are to be used inefficiently. What I mean by inefficient is a single person living in a family home while a family is stuck in a B and B waiting for a home.

FBaby

To me the problem of moving out tenants who start to earn more: it demotivates tenants to actually make a go of it. Would you get a better paid job / work more hours if you knew you'd end up at the mercy of the private rental sector?

What about single mums who get a place, and then find a 'rich' boyfriend who moves in with her and her children and rent his place, when they could have moved to his in the first place (or use the equity for a deposit on a bigger place?

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

What about single mums who get a place, and then find a 'rich' boyfriend who moves in with her and her children and rent his place, when they could have moved to his in the first place (or use the equity for a deposit on a bigger place?

Well that's household income, so would be the same - ie paying full rent, or even over market rent. Again evicting those people wouldn't help if they then broke up?

martinsurrey

TheGardener wrote: »

How is social housing any more 'subsidised' than private landlords pocketing £££££'s of housing benefit paid out to working tenants who can't afford the eye watering private rents?

because if you earn more your HB claim gets reduced, until you are paying the full open market rent.

Social housing rents are not increased to market rent, making it a permanent subsidy.

molerat

My council's housing budget is self funding from rent income, this year increasing by 4% to fund a £9M new build project.

Guest101

molerat wrote: »

My council's housing budget is self funding from rents, this year increasing by 4% to fund a £9M new build project.

Which council - I'm keen to see this. (that means a 225m housing budget funding solely on council rents)

TheGardener

So in terms of cost - how is this administered then? So you get a family to move out - 18mths later the main earner is made redundant/killed in an accident/gets cancer - the family cant afford the rent/mortgage so they end up back on the housing list - it would just become a revolving door for some. Once you had council housing - then you can't ever apply again then? Well that just creates a load of folk who end up homeless.

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

....When I wrote that social housing should be reserved for the 'poorer', I meant really poorer not just slightly below average.

Then you fill all the empty houses with 'really poor' people - unemployed/elderly/single mums - then you have an unbalanced community where those working were paying full rent and keeping their gardens/doing their own repairs and improvements are moved on and the housing repairs and benefit bill goes up. Moving out those who are earning decent money simply take us back to the days of 1970's sink estates.

I wish people would think these things though before they start on beating up anyone who has something they haven't got. The fact the government have kicked 'pay to stay' into the long grass is testament to the question; how do you administer it - have an army of staff who wade though 1000's of P60's every year - and an army of tenants who deliberately reduce their income to prevent being evicted? Where is the cut off point - 30K, 40k??
The real answer is more social housing.