Social Housing Budget To Be Cut By More Than 50 Per Cent

[council dweller]

Have you got a spy camera in my house?

No but thanks for the offer!

[libspero]

.

[edit: obviously bed time.. nite nite all! ]

Edited October 19, 2010 by libspero

[Number79]

They were built then 30 years later sold at a greater price than the cost, if you want rent to be high keep pushing those ideas.

Nope. Many were sold 30 years ago. And not a single person who purchased under the right to buy scheme deserved to. If they were capable of buying then they should have been turfed out of their council houses and given a kick in the backside for being a liability and making living off the state in a council house a lifestyle choice.

Council houses should be a safety net, not a right or a lifestyle choice.

Anyone earning enough to buy their own home should be kicked out to make way for someone in need. I bet that would clear up a lot of the so called 'shortage'.

Back to my original point. They say a council house today costs £49k to build. Even with a rent being paid of £300 a month it will take 163 years for the rent just to pay the build cost. How is that not subsidised? It is a state liability paid for by the tax payer so that someone can live in a house subsidised by the state aka tax payer.

[Stars]

Of course you might be making oblique reference to the difficulty of establishing true market rents where the environment is corrupted by multiple state subsidies and oppressive regulations. This is true but the principle applies; if the council charge less than the market rent, that rent is subsidised.

No it doesn't still apply, not in any meaningful sense.

For example, if a legalised scam were instituted, the fact that i was not forced to pay the scam's charges would not mean I was receiving a subsidy. The actual subsidy would be collected by the people collecting in the legalised scam and I would simply be relieved of paying for a subsidy.

[Self Employed Youth]

You young romantic you!!

I've just googled 'sexpricecash'. There were 3 results, one from the Guardian, one from here and some tranny escort link.

Now there is 2 links on here

You've gave me a good laugh tonight, cheers

[council dweller]

Back to my original point. They say a council house today costs £49k to build. Even with a rent being paid of £300 a month it will take 163 years for the rent just to pay the build cost. How is that not subsidised? It is a state liability paid for by the tax payer so that someone can live in a house subsidised by the state aka tax payer.

Yes indeed, 163 mutiplied by 300 is 49k.....err maybe you should try that again?

[Rain'ard]

Serves the pratts right for voting Tory

[Self Employed Youth]

Nope. Many were sold 30 years ago. And not a single person who purchased under the right to buy scheme deserved to. If they were capable of buying then they should have been turfed out of their council houses and given a kick in the backside for being a liability and making living off the state in a council house a lifestyle choice.

Council houses should be a safety net, not a right or a lifestyle choice.

Anyone earning enough to buy their own home should be kicked out to make way for someone in need. I bet that would clear up a lot of the so called 'shortage'.

Back to my original point. They say a council house today costs £49k to build. Even with a rent being paid of £300 a month it will take 163 years for the rent just to pay the build cost. How is that not subsidised? It is a state liability paid for by the tax payer so that someone can live in a house subsidised by the state aka tax payer.

I want my square mile of England off of the state. Failing that and considering the area I live in has a lower population density, I want my 5 square miles!

[Number79]

Yes indeed, 163 mutiplied by 300 is 49k.....err maybe you should try that again?

you got me. OK so it takes 13 years for the cost of the build to be repaid to the state. There are also a multitude of other costs involved not least of which is maintenance.

Maybe it isnt such a bad investment but to say that council housing is not subsidised living is totally wrong.

I wouldnt want slums over here and people living in filth but I dont want to pay for everyone to have a council house built either. There has to be something in the middle that is there for those in need but not as an automatic right or expectation and certainly not as a lifestyle choice.

Wifey was off sick recently and had the jeremy kyle tosspot on tv some days whilst she was on her laptop. The ammount of young girls on there talking about having/had babies to get a council house made me want to take to the streets.

I was at my daughters ballet class the other day and overheard one fat breeder complaining that with 5 kids now she should be entitled to a bigger house but there are none available at the moment. That it was unfair because another career breeder that she knew had already been moved to a huge mansion for free. It was ok though because soon enough her older cash cows will be too old to share rooms so she will be able to demand a bigger place.

I think that without any entitlement and expectation that this fat breeder would have stopped her chosen career a few sprogs ago if she was told that she had to make do with her state freebies and that there would be no bigger house and no more free money.

[Stars]

I wouldnt want slums over here and people living in filth but I dont want to pay for everyone to have a council house built either.

that's ok, because we just established the tenants cover that cost

[Self Employed Youth]

you got me. OK so it takes 13 years for the cost of the build to be repaid to the state. There are also a multitude of other costs involved not least of which is maintenance.

Maybe it isnt such a bad investment but to say that council housing is not subsidised living is totally wrong.

I wouldnt want slums over here and people living in filth but I dont want to pay for everyone to have a council house built either. There has to be something in the middle that is there for those in need but not as an automatic right or expectation and certainly not as a lifestyle choice.

Wifey was off sick recently and had the jeremy kyle tosspot on tv some days whilst she was on her laptop. The ammount of young girls on there talking about having/had babies to get a council house made me want to take to the streets.

I was at my daughters ballet class the other day and overheard one fat breeder complaining that with 5 kids now she should be entitled to a bigger house but there are none available at the moment. That it was unfair because another career breeder that she knew had already been moved to a huge mansion for free. It was ok though because soon enough her older cash cows will be too old to share rooms so she will be able to demand a bigger place.

I think that without any entitlement and expectation that this fat breeder would have stopped her chosen career a few sprogs ago if she was told that she had to make do with her state freebies and that there would be no bigger house and no more free money.

When a resource is short, people fight for it.

If the way to gain the resource, that is council housing, is by having children, then the sensible tactic is to have children.

After WWII was won, the British public wanted homes fit for heroes, British heroes. Council housing was built for all to replace the slums.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Unemployed Youth

[Number79]

that's ok, because we just established the tenants cover that cost

eventually, yes, but incase you hadnt noticed the coffers are empty. We are all about to be squeezed until the pips squeek as it is so which services do you think we should cut to free up cash for building houses?

They arent cutting the budget and dropping 500,000 public sector workers and 47000 military because we a swimming in cash. If this budget is not cut, if more houses are built then the money needs to come from somewhere. I dont know what else can be cut or what you would like to see cut further but what I do know is that I dont want to pay anymore towards it.

[council dweller]

you got me. OK so it takes 13 years for the cost of the build to be repaid to the state. There are also a multitude of other costs involved not least of which is maintenance.

Maybe it isnt such a bad investment but to say that council housing is not subsidised living is totally wrong.

I wouldnt want slums over here and people living in filth but I dont want to pay for everyone to have a council house built either. There has to be something in the middle that is there for those in need but not as an automatic right or expectation and certainly not as a lifestyle choice.

Wifey was off sick recently and had the jeremy kyle tosspot on tv some days whilst she was on her laptop. The ammount of young girls on there talking about having/had babies to get a council house made me want to take to the streets.

I was at my daughters ballet class the other day and overheard one fat breeder complaining that with 5 kids now she should be entitled to a bigger house but there are none available at the moment. That it was unfair because another career breeder that she knew had already been moved to a huge mansion for free. It was ok though because soon enough her older cash cows will be too old to share rooms so she will be able to demand a bigger place.

I think that without any entitlement and expectation that this fat breeder would have stopped her chosen career a few sprogs ago if she was told that she had to make do with her state freebies and that there would be no bigger house and no more free money.

I save myself a lot of grief by not having a TV, not even a 42 inch one! It really does you no good...

As I mentioned several pages ago it looks like council will be allowed to pay the original debt for council house building. The 25 billion debt will be paid over 20 years from tenants rents.

As for the fat breeders you mention they just leave me cold, if I had to offer some emotion it would just be pity.

[Si1]

...so which services do you think we should cut to free up cash for building houses...

indeed - I seem to recall something recently (last 10 years or so) about massive misallocation of provate capital into buliding 2 bed flats in town centres, and said bad investments being indirectly bailed out by the taxpayer - they might comein handy now eh in lieu of no social building for a few years!

[crash2006]

=Are MPs gping to take a 50% cut on their housing allowance?

[tomandlu]

Anyone earning enough to buy their own home should be kicked out to make way for someone in need. I bet that would clear up a lot of the so called 'shortage'.

Ah - a benefits trap. No unintended consequences there then...

Back to my original point. They say a council house today costs £49k to build. Even with a rent being paid of £300 a month it will take 163 years for the rent just to pay the build cost. How is that not subsidised? It is a state liability paid for by the tax payer so that someone can live in a house subsidised by the state aka tax payer.

An original point based on some appalling maths. 49000/(300*12) = 13.6 years - where did you get 163 years from? Why are 20 year mortgages okay, but not this? Selling them off was a stupid idea, but not for the reasons you've used.

Edit to add - ah, I see someone's already picked up on your maths...

Edited October 20, 2010 by tomandlu

[porca misèria]

Oh dear. Lots of people confusing two issues.

1. Public housing is subsidised by below-market rents. The landlord (us, the taxpayers) are not getting the market value of our asset.
   
2. The market is broken, and has been for a very long time.
   

The two are not unrelated. Creating a parallel false market (social housing, where officials get to pick winners and losers) buggers up the open market. That includes both direct social housing (council houses) and indirect (restricted low-cost housing, housing benefits).

Net result: three classes

1. The rich, who can afford market prices.
   
2. The rich-by-proxy, who get social housing.
   
3. The excluded class, forced to make do with substandard housing.
   

To add insult to injury, the excluded class get to pay three times over:

1. In taxes poured into other people's housing.
   
2. In rents inflated by competition with those taxes.
   
3. In purchase prices inflated by the yields due to those inflated rents (if they eventually get rich enough to buy).
   

[bomberbrown]

Yet renting is very popular on the continent and doesn't seem to have had this effect. Therefore is it real or imagined?

Private companies that receive government subsidies. He who pays the piper...

.

They have very different rental agreeements on the continent compared to the pathetic landlord biased AST's we have here in the UK, and well you know that!

[Stars]

Oh dear. Lots of people confusing two issues.

1. Public housing is subsidised by below-market rents. The landlord (us, the taxpayers) are not getting the market value of our asset.

2. The market is broken, and has been for a very long time.

The two are not unrelated. Creating a parallel false market (social housing, where officials get to pick winners and losers) buggers up the open market.

Well, council housing 'buggers it up' in the same way the presence of a large private landlord who decided to charge low rents as an act of 'charity', would.

Yes, you could describe this as a distortion, but it's a distortion that acts in the opposite direction (pulling rents down) to all the other distortions in the real estate market

I'm not an advocate of public housing btw, i think there are far better ways of dealing with this problem

Edited October 20, 2010 by Stars

[bomberbrown]

We have to ask ourselves, just why is there this resentment over people in Council/Social housing today, where as 30 to 40 odd years ago, there was a massive stigma attached to it?

Funny that.

[live in hope]

Is it really bad news for landlords ? If you're in social housing and are told that you're now affluent enough to pay market rates for it will you stay, or will you find a private rental that's not on a council estate ?

Exactly why is it bad news for landlords. Granted rents will be less in the future, but landlords buying at lower prices should have a greater pool of potential tennants. Or am i mistaken.

[bomberbrown]

Oh dear. Lots of people confusing two issues.

1. Public housing is subsidised by below-market rents. The landlord (us, the taxpayers) are not getting the market value of our asset.

2. The market is broken, and has been for a very long time.

Public/Social/Council (whatever you wanna call it) housing is not for profit, where as private landlords are doing it to make money; i.e. for profit. This is where the differences in the markets lie and where the distortions arise. This is not difficult.

[live in hope]

Public/Social/Council (whatever you wanna call it) housing is not for profit, where as private landlords are doing it to make money; i.e. for profit. This is where the differences in the markets lie and where the distortions arise. This is not difficult.

But social housing is surely the most subsidised scandel there is. Subsidised rentsby the coincil taxpayer, and building payed for by the national taxpayer. Coudnt be worse.

[tomandlu]

Oh dear. Lots of people confusing two issues.

1. Public housing is subsidised by below-market rents. The landlord (us, the taxpayers) are not getting the market value of our asset.

2. The market is broken, and has been for a very long time.

The two are not unrelated. Creating a parallel false market (social housing, where officials get to pick winners and losers) buggers up the open market. That includes both direct social housing (council houses) and indirect (restricted low-cost housing, housing benefits).

Net result: three classes

1. The rich, who can afford market prices.

2. The rich-by-proxy, who get social housing.

3. The excluded class, forced to make do with substandard housing.

To add insult to injury, the excluded class get to pay three times over:

1. In taxes poured into other people's housing.

2. In rents inflated by competition with those taxes.

3. In purchase prices inflated by the yields due to those inflated rents (if they eventually get rich enough to buy).

What really buggers up the market is the current system, where HB sets the floor on rents in the private sector. I'm forced to rent something that would be considered inadequate for a family my size on HB. In other words, my tax is being used against me twice - it removes my purchasing power for a better rental, and it's then used to set a floor under rents.

I would prefer adequate provision of social housing, then I could compete for the private rentals at a fair price. The desire of some people on this site to punish the poor and underpaid seems to push logic out of the window...

Edited October 20, 2010 by tomandlu

[Stars]

But social housing is surely the most subsidised scandel there is. Subsidised rentsby the coincil taxpayer, and building payed for by the national taxpayer. Coudnt be worse.

But what if the tenants paid for the building?....this in fact seems to be the case