GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Not subsidised? Remember, a subsidy is the difference between the market price and the paid price. Frank Dobson is paying £160 a week rent on a million pound flat. Is that the market rate? No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If they were next door to each other or on the same estate I'd agree, but I guess there is an element of desirability here. There is little doubt that in some areas council housing can be hugely advantageous. I guess the real point is; how on earth did we get to the point where £1200 is seen as a realistic rent for a 1 bedroom flat? Council estate in zone 1 is not desirable? I think it is. Certainly I am sure people paying lots of rent for a private rent would happily change for a council rent, if they could. Probably a few people who buy might do so as well I agree with you about £1200 being crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 +1 It should have been. I doubt any government will be able to afford a house building programme for a generation. What's more important foreign aid or an enduring social housing program? Subjective argument I know but how many homes would what we spend on aid build? What would the common man in the street support? The answer is many houses of course but to do so would depress property values, meanwhile in the interests of being charitable in the eyes of the rest of the world Ministers are lining up their kickbacks from big pharma for when they leave office. Its all very well labelling Dobson as part of the problem and allowing this to happen but could he realistically have stopped it? Seems he never got involved and benefited financially doesn't have a large property portfolio but on the other hand he supported to the hilt the Scottish git who as speaker tried to suppress the documents about parliamentary expenses abuse coming out. At least he is making the right noises now. For some what he has said today the 'penny will have dropped'. The more people that can be educated as to how big money and Government works together the better IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor. You voted for Gordon Brown and I claim my £1.4tn bailout back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor. Councils should maximise the return on their assets to help all residents in an area. Not provide some with cheap housing and not others. If I had a one bed flat and 2 adult children I would rent it and give each half the rent rather than give one free housing and nothing to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 You voted for Gordon Brown and I claim my £1.4tn bailout back. eh.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 eh.......... Oops, forgot that nobody voted for him! Should have said Labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Councils should maximise the return on their assets to help all residents in an area. Not provide some with cheap housing and not others. If I had a one bed flat and 2 adult children I would rent it and give each half the rent rather than give one free housing and nothing to the other. Right, so were agreed that councils do not subsidise rents and now you want them to act like parasitic landlords. How on earth does it serve a council, who are charged with serving the best intrests of it's residents, to 'maximise it's return' with reguard to council housing? Council housing is not an investment, it is a service and one that should be offered to it's residents at as low as cost as possible. The onyl problem is is there is not enough council housing. How you treat your kids is entirely up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Is he a millionaire? I think Dobson's point that prices and rent are insane is right. He and his mates may well have caused the issue, but I don't think council rents should match private rents nor do I believe that people with incomes over a certain threshold be thrown out of their homes, especially if they have lived there for 30 or 40 years. High incomes can be temporary. If there was more council provision for homes, then this would drive private rents down and in turn house prices. There are less homes built now than 50 years ago, yet the population has grown by about 10 million and when you factor in more people living on their own, the lack of government funded development has caused the problem. Sadly while the sun shone, no one fixed the roof they just slapped on the Ambre Solaire. If he isn't, then he has led a very profligate lifestyle indeed, having had a high paid job for years. His pension pot will make him a millionaire alone, not quite the same as ready cash perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor. I was under the impression that taxes were the original source of the funds used to build council housing. If this is the case, then councils have the obligation to maximise the return on the assets created using taxpayer funds i.e. setting rents at market levels for social tenants who can afford it. Any rents below market levels for tenants who can afford to pay market levels are a subsidy because taxpayers are paying more tax than necessary rather than having the council maximise the returns on taxpayers' assets. Edit : To allow for the fact that some social tenants can't afford to pay market rents. Edited June 16, 2011 by LuckyOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrgee1991 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If I had a one bed flat and 2 adult children I would rent it and give each half the rent rather than give one free housing and nothing to the other. Sadly, this does happen with council housing. The official tenant sub-lets. They pay the £60/week yet get £500/week. And they live where they choose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Oops, forgot that nobody voted for him! Should have said Labour. Because I can see the sense in a particular social policy does not mean I'm a socialist or a voter, let alone a Labour one. Or is there another reason why you think I vote/which way you think I vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichM Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 "I Just Can't Afford Private Rent, Says Council Tenant Former Minister On £66,000 Salary" Yup, there's your problem mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Sadly, this does happen with council housing. The official tenant sub-lets. They pay the £60/week yet get £500/week. And they live where they choose to. Is that not illegal? If so prosecute them with extream prejudice. (not sure that really fits, just like the sound of it. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrgee1991 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I was under the impression that taxes were the original source of the funds used to build council housing. If this is the case, then councils have the obligation to maximise the return on the assets created using taxpayer funds i.e. setting rents at market levels for social tenants who can afford it. Any rents below market levels for tenants who can afford to pay market levels are a subsidy because taxpayers are paying more tax than necessary rather than having the council maximise the returns on taxpayers' assets. Edit : To allow for the fact that some social tenants can't afford to pay market rents. In the past councils used the rents paid to build more homes. Now they squander it on marketing. Arguably the rents are taxes as they all go into the local authority pot. One justification for increasing them would be to reduce the overall tax burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrgee1991 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Is that not illegal? If so prosecute them with extream prejudice. (not sure that really fits, just like the sound of it. ) Probably, but it's a win-win, so unlikely to be reported. The tenant profits and the sub-tenant gets a place at less than market rate. Unlikely either of them will squeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I was under the impression that taxes were the original source of the funds used to build council housing. I can only assume this to be correct. If this is the case, then councils have the obligation to maximise the return on the assets created using taxpayer funds i.e. setting rents at market levels for social tenants who can afford it. Why? how about using this tax to reduce the cost of living in this country to a point where we are globally competitive Any rents below market levels for tenants who can afford to pay market levels are a subsidy because taxpayers are paying more tax than necessary rather than having the council maximise the returns on taxpayers' assets. Edit : To allow for the fact that some social tenants can't afford to pay market rents. Where do you get the market value from? Is the private market rent not too high alredy? You're really suggesting that councils should price their rents at the same levels as the private market? What effect do you think this will have on private rents? What will council rents have to do next? How many closet landlords are there on here these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worried1 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 +1 I also work around Bloomsbury and commute in from zone 3. Most of the people who live around Bloomsbury are unemployed e.g. Somali immigrant families. It's insane that we house people without jobs next to workplaces while people with jobs waste 2 hours every day battling their way in and out. I see the same thing as I walk from Waterloo in the morning. There is an estate of townhouses nearby that seem to only house large immigrant familes. It is not a race thing, these houses are within a short walk of both the City and West End, and surely priority should go to people who work in these areas in low paid jobs, rather than those at the top of the register. Lots of parts of Central London are very strange now, the poorest in society living next door to the richest, and not much in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Is that not illegal? If so prosecute them with extream prejudice. (not sure that really fits, just like the sound of it. ) It is illegal, or at least against all the rules - there was a TV prog. about it recently. Councils should be forced to crack down on it, hard, but they won't because a lot of staff in council housing depts. are themselves dodgy and up to all sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Why? how about using this tax to reduce the cost of living in this country to a point where we are globally competitive that's a huge contradiction in one sentence - who do you suppose pays taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 No, a subsidy is a payment made. Council rents do not lose money where the tenant pays the full council rent (N.B not housing benefit). Councils own council housing, they do not have debt to service or profits to make only the upkeep of the property therefore their costs are less than the private sector that is all, no sudsidy. It is the private rental prices that are wrong not council rents, the majority of the difference going to the banks. Council rents will always be less than private rents because of the desirability factor. Quite. Total free market religionist, when the argument is totally lost just devises his personal definition of a word. No hope whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Right, so were agreed that councils do not subsidise rents and now you want them to act like parasitic landlords. How on earth does it serve a council, who are charged with serving the best intrests of it's residents, to 'maximise it's return' with reguard to council housing? Council housing is not an investment, it is a service and one that should be offered to it's residents at as low as cost as possible. The onyl problem is is there is not enough council housing. How you treat your kids is entirely up to you. Actually, what the poor fool is suggesting is that council tennants should SUBSIDISE the rest of us. Charming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Is the private market rent not too high alredy? yes, but effective subsidy of rent using taxes, as you directly imply (admitting it IS subsidy) just pushes rents up higher by using up stock inefficiently for people with less need your solution pushes market rates up, not the other way round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 On paper he's probably right, if he means that he could not afford to rent the flat in which he currently lives. I'd guess that £66k equates to a take-home pay of around £3,500 a month, and if one of the flats in his block costs £4 a month at current market rates, then he can't afford it. However, I couldn't afford to live in London or the south-east on my current salary of £43k with the standard of living I have at the moment - and that's the main reason why I live and work in Yorkshire. If he wanted to Dobson could do the same, and, unlike anyone who isn't an MP and who commutes long distances, he could also have his commuting costs picked up by the taxpayer, too. No sympathy whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) I was under the impression that taxes were the original source of the funds used to build council housing. If this is the case, then councils have the obligation to maximise the return on the assets created using taxpayer funds i.e. setting rents at market levels for social tenants who can afford it. Any rents below market levels for tenants who can afford to pay market levels are a subsidy because taxpayers are paying more tax than necessary rather than having the council maximise the returns on taxpayers' assets. Edit : To allow for the fact that some social tenants can't afford to pay market rents. A fabulous investment for the taxpayer then when considering the huge amount of housing benefit saved. Howabout the Government hires out the army to the highest bidder, or maximises the return on roads. Try again. Edited June 16, 2011 by Laughing Gnome 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.