bomberbrown Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 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. I thought this notion was dealt with here: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=153055&view=findpost&p=2752193 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 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. I suggest that you read from page one. Also, you should contact your contact to local council and find out how much of your Council tax goes to the housing revenue account. You will find that you are parroting media mis-information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 New council tenants will have to pay 80% of normal rents. Well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 New council tenants will have to pay 80% of normal rents. Well.... Would an exchange make you a new tenant I wonder? If it does, it won't be good for mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) New council tenants will have to pay 80% of normal rents. Well.... Which would mean that a) over time there will be a vast expansion of 'social housing' as the excess income would have to be re-invested in building new property. b ) Alternatively the only people who live in social housing would be on benefits - why pay basically the same for council housing as a private landlord (who can, for instance be screwed down on the rent). So council housing will become sink estates for the unemployed, paid for by housing benefit. The rent would actually immaterial and getting any sort of job impossible as it would be impossible to cover the rent with a starter job. Whole area's of council property would be un-rent-able - who would pay market rates to live in a council estate? The LibCons are pretty damn much communists it would seem. Edited October 20, 2010 by Peter Hun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Would an exchange make you a new tenant I wonder? If it does, it won't be good for mobility. No, otherwise no one would exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Which would mean that a) over time there will be a vast expansion of 'social housing' as the excess income would have to be re-invested in building new property. b ) Alternatively the only people who live in social housing would be on benefits - why pay basically the same for council housing as a private landlord (who can, for instance be screwed down on the rent). So council housing will become sink estates for the unemployed, paid for by housing benefit. The rent would actually immaterial and getting any sort of job impossible as it would be impossible to cover the rent with a starter job. Whole area's of council property would be un-rent-able - who would pay market rates to live in a council estate? The LibCons are pretty damn much communists it would seem. I don't think we'll see a vast increase, the governments target is only 150k over 4 years. I believe that many HA tenants are paying 80% of private rental rates anyway, maybe HA tenants on here can confirm or deny? People are paying 800 per month on this estate to rent a house that costs 380 from the council btw. I notice that 100% of RTB receipts will now go to the government, up from 75% now. (page 12 of review) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 The LibCons are pretty damn much communists it would seem. They are just unwilling to grasp the real estate market nettle because the vested interests involved are so powerful. So they (and previous administrations) have just come up with various ways to leave the problematic interests reasonably unchallenged while moving various deck-chairs about and changing the colour of the wheels The problem is the real estate market as we know it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of property and doesn't work in the interests of most people. It needs to be reformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I believe that many HA tenants are paying 80% of private rental rates anyway, maybe HA tenants on here can confirm or deny? I moved out of my HA flat into private as it was cheaper in private, in Leeds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I don't think we'll see a vast increase, the governments target is only 150k over 4 years. I believe that many HA tenants are paying 80% of private rental rates anyway, maybe HA tenants on here can confirm or deny? People are paying 800 per month on this estate to rent a house that costs 380 from the council btw. I notice that 100% of RTB receipts will now go to the government, up from 75% now. (page 12 of review) Almost. I'd say about 70%, but this is increasing year on year on top of inflation under an already existing directive aimed at getting HA rents in line with private rents. All this is by the by for me any way, as whats most important to me is the fact that I have got a professional landlord that has their tenants best interests first and won't turf me out of my home the minute house prices start going north again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain'ard Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Council rents to be 80% of market value. what's market value? I'll just have to appy for more housing benefit to cover it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Council rents to be 80% of market value. what's market value? I'll just have to appy for more housing benefit to cover it Still, at least they're not paying "market value", which would create a self perpetuating bubble. What the private sector can afford sets the "market value", and the the government goes in lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 So, apart from the rents being paid by the taxpayer and the houses being paid by the taxpayer, council housing is definitely not subsidised at all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Thank you for pointing this out. I was reading through the thread and getting quite annoyed at the complete lack of understanding on show. The way the change in rents for new social housing tenants has been announced is very confusing, and I suspect designed deliberately to be so. It flies in the face of the changes to housing benefit (or seems to) and it is almost going to be nigh on impossible to fund 150,000 new housing units this way. There is no information about how this will be implemented, when, what they mean by market rent or in fact anything useful. It does smack of quite old fashioned conservatism in a bad way. It also seems fishy. Its as if the announcement was designed in a way to allow the government to kick the policy into the long grass. I could be wrong but I can't imagine this being implemented without an unholy fight. My guess is that around 2% of this LA's houses become available each year. This would mean 120 new tenants paying an extra 3k per years each so 360k per year. This could be used to build about 4 houses. Multiply this by the number of LAs (around 200?) and you get 800new houses......? Of course, in the 2nd year the number of new, higher paying tenants would double so you'd be able to build 1,600. Must be something wrong with my maths as I can't see them building 150k over 4 years!? Of course that leaves HA's but there seems little room for rent increases and increased revenue.....besides, their grants for building are being cut by 50% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 So, apart from the rents being paid by the taxpayer and the houses being paid by the taxpayer, council housing is definitely not subsidised at all.... Try telling 'em the queen's not subsidised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 New council tenants will have to pay 80% of normal rents. Well.... That doesnt seem so bad, a pretty good investement even. The state builds a house, tenant pays reasonable rent, build price is returned to state, ukplc owns an asset. But, how many are not paying anywhere near the 80%? what about those that do not work? Surely with no income they are still being subsidised by the state. It may come from another pot but taxpayers money is being used - in reality it isnt though, people with no income are getting a free ride in a council house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Try telling 'em the queen's not subsidised In terms of the things she has in common with a council house tenant, she isn't (being allowed to sit somewhere without asking the permission of a landowner) There are a few differences though aren't there?..like the vast land holdings and huge payouts from the state Edited October 20, 2010 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Try telling 'em the queen's not subsidised Yep and by an increasingly disgusting amount too but lets face it, she doesnt have the option of selling up and moving to spain does she? The monarchy are like caretakers to national heritage sites. I dont mind paying something toward keeping our history, although some of the estates dont need to be anywhere near as big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 In terms of the things she has in common with a council house tenant, she isn't (being allowed to sit somewhere without asking permission) That's fine then. As long as we agree that the queen isn't subsidised and that it's fair that depending on momentary circumstance it's ok for the government to decide who should live like a queen for life and who should pay "market rates" for life then we could agree that the current situation is fair to all. As you said once, it's the same thing observed from different angles. There are a few differences though aren't there?..like the vast land holdings and huge payouts from the state Not really any more than it is fair that one council house is bigger than another. But since none of them are subsidised it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Yep and by an increasingly disgusting amount too but lets face it, she doesnt have the option of selling up and moving to spain does she? The monarchy are like caretakers to national heritage sites. I dont mind paying something toward keeping our history, although some of the estates dont need to be anywhere near as big. I don't mind subsidising the queen either.. if it wasn't her it'd only be another head of state. We can say as a country that we have a real monarch and IMHO that's quite a rare novelty these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 As long as we agree that the queen isn't subsidised and that it's fair that depending on momentary circumstance it's ok for the government to decide who should live like a queen for life and who should pay "market rates" for life then we could agree that the current situation is fair to all. Err i didn't agree that the queen is not subsidised - read what i wrote Not really any more than it is fair that one council house is bigger than another. But since none of them are subsidised it doesn't matter. She is subsidised to the tune of her land holdings and that special royal welfare she gets. She isn't subsidised because she is allowed to live somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I don't mind subsidising the queen either.. if it wasn't her it'd only be another head of state. We can say as a country that we have a real monarch and IMHO that's quite a rare novelty these days. I have nothing against royalty either, in fact i think the scheme should be expanded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmamedusa Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Apart from the fact that not everyone in a council house claims housing benefit and the fact that much of the stock has more than paid for itself in rent revenue raised since it was constructed, any houses which haven't covered their build cost will do so with future rent payments, barring catastrophe. Apart from that okay yeah it is massively subsidised..... The build cost is subsidised no? Without that grant money the Net Present value calculation after taking in responsive and major repairs, voids, bad debts, legal regular checks such as gas and elec, gas servcing, new edition electric standards which are always seem to be coming out, contributions towards housing officers, costs collecting the rent, surveyors, etc etc would never come in as a postive figure If that grant money was taken away, it would never be possible for the HA's or councils to get the money from private sources as the NPV life cycle would not add up. The HA's/Councils would have to be able to put the rent up, which is why the option to increase rents has now come in. Edited October 20, 2010 by enigmamedusa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 That doesnt seem so bad, a pretty good investement even. The state builds a house, tenant pays reasonable rent, build price is returned to state, ukplc owns an asset. But, how many are not paying anywhere near the 80%? what about those that do not work? Surely with no income they are still being subsidised by the state. It may come from another pot but taxpayers money is being used - in reality it isnt though, people with no income are getting a free ride in a council house. A historic day for social housing, the begining of the end. Not so good for the fat beeders you were talking about last night is it? I wonder when the new system will start? Next April perhaps? This is all setting the stage for the introduction of UC if if ask me, get rid of HB and just cover almost all costs with UC. To make this 'fairer' social rents must be higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 She is subsidised to the tune of her land holdings and that special royal welfare public sector wage she gets. Are you saying council tenants are being subsidised on their gardens? Uh oh... shaky ground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.