SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Not I'm not. You're claiming 'subsidy' but unable to define or defend it. Therefore I'm trying to point out the that social housing is not subsidised by taxpayers and the logical inconsistency of what you appear to be saying. Either you don't understand what a subsidy is, you're confusing social housing with housing generally, or you're just making stuff up. If, in the context of contrary evidence and an inability to counter it, you still choose to believe what you do then I find it odd. Up to you, but that's the same approach that got us where we are with housing and will make it worse. I was editing my post above to address some of these points when you posted this. I'll restate what I said there here.The Housing Association is subsidising the living costs of their tenants, by offering them housing at lower than market rates. Whether the HA subsidising the rich is a problem depends upon the charter and mandate of the HA. I was under the impression that most were set up to help the poor. Is that not correct? To be clear a Housing Association has the benefit of capital which is offered to its tenants at less than market rates. Anytime anybody gives you anything at less than market rates you're being subsidised. I've explicitly defined it. It's called opportunity cost. It's not something I've made up it's a very well established concept. Google it and educate yourself. You keep saying that you've provided evidence and that I've provided none, but in fact you've provided nothing but opinion and rhetoric. Rather than just spouting rhetorical guff, why don't you tell me why opportunity cost doesn't exist, or why it doesn't apply in this case? Edited July 5, 2015 by SpectrumFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbiebegood Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Ideally there'd be enough social housing for anybody who wanted it. Given that there isn't I don't have a problem in reserving it for those with the greatest need. I also don't look down on people who live on council estates, especially as all of their houses are bigger than mine Please define the "greatest need".Should all existing Council housing be turned into getthos before they are razed down by "developers" subsidised by Con regime? The more people pay these insanely high "market rents", the higher is the cost of housing for all of us. The very same applies with insanely high house prices. The more there are willing slaves to work longer and for less money whilst at the same time the very same willing slaves can borrow greater and greater liar loans, the worst it is for eveyone else. There are so many facets to this discussion. "Market rate" does not imply that it is truly a market rate because of all kinds of government subsidies. Also,Business rates are set by the Councils' penpushers, presumably the same will be with the residential rents.We all know how high business rates are destroying businesses because these "rates" have nothing to do with real world economics. What a sad world: People from the "Rich country" in 21st century high-tech world finds it luxurious to live in dilapitated (and dirty and poorly built) shoebox sized social housing built a half century ago. Not to mention the low quality and criminal choice of locations for new buillds. Not to mention the quality and size of the rest of U.K.'s housing stock. All the above shows what U.K. has been reduced to (including reduced criteria of what good quality of life actually is - by the sheeple) by successive governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Please define the "greatest need". Should all existing Council housing be turned into getthos before they are razed down by "developers" subsidised by Con regime? The more people pay these insanely high "market rents", the higher is the cost of housing for all of us. The very same applies with insanely high house prices. The more there are willing slaves to work longer and for less money whilst at the same time the very same willing slaves can borrow greater and greater liar loans, the worst it is for eveyone else. There are so many facets to this discussion. "Market rate" does not imply that it is truly a market rate because of all kinds of government subsidies. Also,Business rates are set by the Councils' penpushers, presumably the same will be with the residential rents.We all know how high business rates are destroying businesses because these "rates" have nothing to do with real world economics. What a sad world: People from the "Rich country" in 21st century high-tech world finds it luxurious to live in dilapitated (and dirty and poorly built) shoebox sized social housing built a half century ago. Not to mention the low quality and criminal choice of locations for new buillds. Not to mention the quality and size of the rest of U.K.'s housing stock. All the above shows what U.K. has been reduced to (including reduced criteria of what good quality of life actually is - by the sheeple) by successive governments. As a start I think it's fair to say that somebody working full time and earning a salary of £17k has a greater need than somebody with a £170k salary. Roughly speaking we can come up with a scale of need that puts the £170k guy towards the top of the scale in the "I can look after myself, thanks" category, and the £17k guy at the other end in the "could do with a little help, thanks" category. Is than OK as a starting point? Sure, we need to build more social housing, but i'm not going to shed a tear for people on £40k plus (a top 10% salary in the UK) having to sort out their own housing arrangements so that their current social housing provision can be allocated to those in the lower 90% of earners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I was editing my post above to address some of these points when you posted this. I'll restate what I said there here. The Housing Association is subsidising the living costs of their tenants, by offering them housing at lower than market rates. Whether the HA subsidising the rich is a problem depends upon the charter and mandate of the HA. I was under the impression that most were set up to help the poor. Is that not correct? To be clear a Housing Association has the benefit of capital which is offered to its tenants at less than market rates. Anytime anybody gives you anything at less than market rates you're being subsidised. I've explicitly defined it. It's called opportunity cost. It's not something I've made up it's a very well established concept. Google it and educate yourself. You keep saying that you've provided evidence and that I've provided none, but in fact you've provided nothing but opinion and rhetoric. Rather than just spouting rhetorical guff, why don't you tell me why opportunity cost doesn't exist, or why it doesn't apply in this case? Ok to get terms clear, I'm assuming you mean that taxpayers are subsidising social housing. Forget moral intentions or rich/poor. I'm simply talking about numbers. Either taxpayers subsidise social housing or they don't. According to the numbers in earlier linked piece they don't. That's just a blog piece but it's a starting point, and usually pretty good on taxation and data. I've looked for numerical evidence to the contrary and cannot find any. If you have such evidence I'd like to read it as said before - I wasn't being sarcastic. I undertand what opportunity cost means. As said previously that reference relies on other factors for confirmation. The reason I referred to logical inconsistency was primarily because you don't address them which hampers making such an inference. Again, if you explain how it does exist in the context of 'market rents' and 'non-social tenants' that would make more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Or how about Right to Buyers forced to pay market price for taxpayer owned homes. Quite. Why are market rates good for social housing tenants earning more than a certain amount but not for people who want to purchase the same property under RTB It seems not all 'subsidies' are equal The logical inconsistencies of Osbornes policies never cease to amaze me but then it is abundantly clear he just spends all his time playing politics looking to garner temporary advantage for his party at any future election rather than coming forward with anything approaching a coherent policy on housing or anything else. Fortunately, for him he has got the number of most of the British population including surprisingly quite a few people who post here and ought to know better . Edited July 5, 2015 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Ok to get terms clear, I'm assuming you mean that taxpayers are subsidising social housing. Forget moral intentions or rich/poor. I'm simply talking about numbers. Either taxpayers subsidise social housing or they don't. According to the numbers in earlier linked piece they don't. That's just a blog piece but it's a starting point, and usually pretty good on taxation and data. I've looked for numerical evidence to the contrary and cannot find any. If you have such evidence I'd like to read it as said before - I wasn't being sarcastic. I undertand what opportunity cost means. As said previously that reference relies on other factors for confirmation. The reason I referred to logical inconsistency was primarily because you don't address them which hampers making such an inference. Again, if you explain how it does exist in the context of 'market rents' and 'non-social tenants' that would make more sense. Opportunity cost exists wherever anybody is charging less than a market rate, because they could just charge market rate. So there is a subsidy, which is the difference between the market rate and what is being charged. I can't put it any simpler than that. As to who is technically providing the subsidy, it's whoever is providing housing at less than market rate. If that's the council, them it's the tax payer. If it's a Housing Association, then it's whoever provided the capital to set that HA up. To my mind the question is, what is social housing for? It clearly is meant to provide decent housing at less than market rate, and I don't have a problem with that, but was it ever intended that it should be provided to the top 10% of earners, while poorer people in greater need sleep in toilets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I've said it before and I'll keep saying. 'Social housing' wasn't a problem when I joined this board around 2005. Social housing was hardly ever discussed. Now it seems to be that everyone in a social house is onto a good little number. Now we have 'social housing envy' 'How dare someone have a 'reasonable rent' get repairs done and have a secure tenancy?' BURN THEM! All of this is because of TOTAL MARKET FAILURE Some of you are being taken for fools by the Tories (as usual) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Opportunity cost exists wherever anybody is charging less than a market rate, because they could just charge market rate. So there is a subsidy, which is the difference between the market rate and what is being charged. I can't put it any simpler than that. As to who is technically providing the subsidy, it's whoever is providing housing at less than market rate. If that's the council, them it's the tax payer. If it's a Housing Association, then it's whoever provided the capital to set that HA up. To my mind the question is, what is social housing for? It clearly is meant to provide decent housing at less than market rate, and I don't have a problem with that, but was it ever intended that it should be provided to the top 10% of earners, while poorer people in greater need sleep in toilets? I dont think an income of £30,000 a year puts you anywhere near the top 10% of earners http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare Is this not just another disguised tax on middle income earners from a chancellor who already has form in this area from his gerrymandering of the 40% tax band in the last Parliament (incidentally an electoral open goal that Labour spectacularly managed to miss in 2015) ? Wont the effect just be to make many of those effected simply drop their hours so that they bring their earnings in just under the limit. As a consequence it is probable that very little housing will released and the states tax take will go down. Not that Osborne cares because his aim is to score a few political points, pacify those afflicted with 'social housing envy' and win plaudits from the media. It is certainly not going to tackle Britains housing problems or even to provide that many extra homes for the poor. . Edited July 5, 2015 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbiebegood Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 As a start I think it's fair to say that somebody working full time and earning a salary of £17k has a greater need than somebody with a £170k salary. Roughly speaking we can come up with a scale of need that puts the £170k guy towards the top of the scale in the "I can look after myself, thanks" category, and the £17k guy at the other end in the "could do with a little help, thanks" category. Is than OK as a starting point? Sure, we need to build more social housing, but i'm not going to shed a tear for people on £40k plus (a top 10% salary in the UK) having to sort out their own housing arrangements so that their current social housing provision can be allocated to those in the lower 90% of earners. So where is the cut off which defines "greater" or "greatest" need?How much income it has to be per person of the household to be considered in above "needs? Salary on its own is definetly not a proper yardstick. In regards to "subsidy" issue, it is in majority of cases Council tenants who subsidise the Government, considering that majority of social housing is decades old. If their rents were truly "not for profit", Council tenants' rents would only consist of sevice and maintenance charges only. Not to mention that the Government -being the biggest landlord can therefore charge lower rents and build more cheaply than huge majority of private landlords. Makes you wonder where did all the monies from "Right to buy" dissapeared.Definetly not into new social housing, otherwise they could have easily built one new flat for one sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbiebegood Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 As a start I think it's fair to say that somebody working full time and earning a salary of £17k has a greater need than somebody with a £170k salary. Roughly speaking we can come up with a scale of need that puts the £170k guy towards the top of the scale in the "I can look after myself, thanks" category, and the £17k guy at the other end in the "could do with a little help, thanks" category. Is than OK as a starting point? Sure, we need to build more social housing, but i'm not going to shed a tear for people on £40k plus (a top 10% salary in the UK) having to sort out their own housing arrangements so that their current social housing provision can be allocated to those in the lower 90% of earners. So where is the cut off which defines "greater" or "greatest" need?How much income it has to be per person of the household to be considered in above "needs? Salary on its own is definetly not a proper yardstick. In regards to "subsidy" issue, it is in majority of cases Council tenants who subsidise the Government, considering that majority of social housing is decades old. If their rents were truly "not for profit", Council tenants' rents would only consist of sevice and maintenance charges only. Not to mention that the Government -being the biggest landlord can therefore charge lower rents and build more cheaply than huge majority of private landlords. Makes you wonder where did all the monies from "Right to buy" dissapeared.Definetly not into new social housing, otherwise they could have easily built one new flat for one sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Opportunity cost exists wherever anybody is charging less than a market rate, because they could just charge market rate. So there is a subsidy, which is the difference between the market rate and what is being charged. I can't put it any simpler than that. As to who is technically providing the subsidy, it's whoever is providing housing at less than market rate. If that's the council, them it's the tax payer. If it's a Housing Association, then it's whoever provided the capital to set that HA up. To my mind the question is, what is social housing for? It clearly is meant to provide decent housing at less than market rate, and I don't have a problem with that, but was it ever intended that it should be provided to the top 10% of earners, while poorer people in greater need sleep in toilets? If those receiving a 'subsidy' as you call it (I think you're mixing up cost with cost + economic rents) are the same group paying it (social tenants) how does it cost the taxpayer anything? I agree the entire housing market is a joke, but that's not what we're talking about. But let's say you're right that social rent < market rent = opportunity cost reflected in lower social rents rather than higher market rents. Then let's say the government raised all social rents to your market rates or sold it all off. Where does the previous opportunity cost gain migrate to? What would this imply about whether any original opportunity cost was incurred in the burden of social housing and social rents, or private housing and social/private rents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I dont think an income of £30,000 a year puts you anywhere near the top 10% of earners http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare Is this not just another disguised tax on middle income earners from a chancellor who already has form in this area from his gerrymandering of the 40% tax band in the last Parliament (incidentally an electoral open goal that Labour spectacularly managed to miss in 2015) ? Wont the effect just be to make many of those effected simply drop their hours so that they bring their earnings in just under the limit. As a consequence very little housing will be actually released and the states tax take will go down. Not that Osborne cares because his aim is to score a few political points and win plaudits from the media not to tackle Britains housing problems or even to provide homes for the poor. . Do you think it makes you poor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Do you think it makes you poor? When are you going to define poverty a question other posters have put to you ? I dont think a man supporting a wife and 2 kids on £30,000 is by any definition well off. Moreover, you said the policy was aimed at the top 10% of earners. I simply pointed out that the figures show your assertion was incorrect Since the limit applies to by combining all earnings in a household the impact is going to be felt much lower down the wage scale than the top 10% of earners. In fact taking couples combined incomes it will cover the best part of 5 deciles of earners If Osborne really believed in market rates for property then he should apply them to all social housing rents and also to the sales of Council and Housing association property. The fact that he does not tells you all you need to know about his attitude to 'subsidies' (ie they are to be used to garner the maximum political return) The truth is that this is just another poorly disguised and regressive tax on middle income earners like so many others he has introduced Edited July 5, 2015 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 If those receiving a 'subsidy' as you call it (I think you're mixing up cost with cost + economic rents) are the same group paying it (social tenants) how does it cost the taxpayer anything? I agree the entire housing market is a joke, but that's not what we're talking about. But let's say you're right that social rent < market rent = opportunity cost reflected in lower social rents rather than higher market rents. Then let's say the government raised all social rents to your market rates or sold it all off. Where does the previous opportunity cost gain migrate to? What would this imply about whether any original opportunity cost was incurred in the burden of social housing and social rents, or private housing and social/private rents? You can think what you want. Fundamentally resources are limited (by both real and artificial factors). Accepting that increasing social housing provision would be a good idea, and putting that idea to one side. Is it fair that an element of the current limited provison is held by people who could genuinely afford to pay market rates while other people who can't live in toilets. It's supposed to be "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need", not "I'm alright jack". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbiebegood Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I dont think an income of £30,000 a year puts you anywhere near the top 10% of earners http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare Is this not just another disguised tax on middle income earners from a chancellor who already has form in this area from his gerrymandering of the 40% tax band in the last Parliament (incidentally an electoral open goal that Labour spectacularly managed to miss in 2015) ? Wont the effect just be to make many of those effected simply drop their hours so that they bring their earnings in just under the limit. As a consequence it is probable that very little housing will released and the states tax take will go down. Not that Osborne cares because his aim is to score a few political points, pacify those afflicted with 'social housing envy' and win plaudits from the media. It is certainly not going to tackle Britains housing problems or even to provide that many extra homes for the poor. . +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 You can think what you want. Fundamentally resources are limited (by both real and artificial factors). Accepting that increasing social housing provision would be a good idea, and putting that idea to one side. Is it fair that an element of the current limited provison is held by people who could genuinely afford to pay market rates while other people who can't live in toilets. It's supposed to be "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need", not "I'm alright jack". But that doesn't address the subject matter or problem at all. I don't think there's much point in this is there, but for what it's worth what you appear to be arguing that if instead of tenants paying for the cost of housing, they had to pay for the cost of housing + rent-seeker markup ('market' rent) they and we would all be better off. I'd suggest in terms of resources, market, provision, affordabilty and opportunity you've got that entirely the wrong way round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 When are you going to define poverty a question other posters have put to you. I dont think a man supporting a wife and 2 kids on £30,000 is by any definition well off. Moreover, you said the policy was aimed at the top 10% of earners. I simply pointed out that the figures show your assertion was incorrect If Osborne really believed in market rates for property then he should apply them to all social housing rents and also to the sales of Council and Housing association property. The fact that he does not tells you all you need to know about his attitude to 'subsidies' (ie they are to be used to garner the maximum political return) The truth is that this is just another disguised tax on middle income earners like so many others he has introduced. I set out a framework for defining poverty a while back in the thread. I don't see the point of elaborating on it. I don't think anybody on £30k is in poverty, if you don't agree that's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 But that doesn't address the subject matter or problem at all. I don't think there's much point in this is there, but for what it's worth what you appear to be arguing that if instead of tenants paying for the cost of housing, they had to pay for the cost of housing + rent-seeker markup ('market' rent) they and we would all be better off. I'd suggest in terms of resources, market, provision, affordabilty and opportunity you've got that entirely the wrong way round. Ignoring what I'm actually saying and posting lots of stuff I haven't said and then pretending it's what I'm saying is pretty pointless to be honest. I'll try again. Only a limited number of people can access social housing (there's not enough of it for everybody*). The people who have it have a benefit that the people who don't have it don't, because their rents are below market rate. My understanding was that social housing was intended to be for the poor. Is that understanding wrong? Assuming that that understanding is correct is it not reasonable to start excluding higher earners so that the limited provison available can be allocated to those who earn less (and therefore presumably have a greater need). *I think they should build more, but that's beside the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) I set out a framework for defining poverty a while back in the thread. I don't see the point of elaborating on it. I don't think anybody on £30k is in poverty, if you don't agree that's fine. I am not sure it matters on this issue since Osborne clearly looking to raise extra revenue to pay down the deficit by thinking up regressive taxes on certain middle income earners rather than do anything material about housing needs. All that guff about helping the poor is really just so much sand thrown in the face of the public while he grabs the dough. If you are mug enough to think different then thats your choice. BTW I note that once again that Osborne is shamelessly leaking details of the budget before its announcement. I dont know why he botthers with the speech anymore since it is all in the press days in advance Edited July 5, 2015 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 if a couple earn 16k each will they pay market rents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I am not sure it matters on this issue since Osborne clearly looking to raise extra revenue to pay down the deficit by thinking up regressive taxes on certain middle income earners rather than do anything material about housing needs. All that guff about helping the poor is really just so much sand thrown in the face of the public while he grabs the dough. If you are mug enough to think different then thats your choice. BTW I note that once again that Osborne is shamelessly leaking details of the budget before its announcement. I dont know why he botthers with the speech anymore since it is all in the press days in advance I agree. The bigger picture is that were all ******ed, this is just rearranging deck chair stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) if a couple earn 16k each will they pay market rents? As far as I can see yes - outside London- since the earnings in question is the 'household wage' not an individuals earnings. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-04/osborne-looks-set-to-cut-social-housing-cash/ Of course, the whole thing begs the question of what constitutes a rent subsidy since there is no doubt that private rents that will be used to set the new 'market rate' for social housing tenants are themselves probably only maintainable at their current level due to the Housing Benefit which ends up in landlords pockets. Needless to say, subsidies to rentiers rather than renters are an entirely different matter as far as the Chancellor is concerned Edited July 5, 2015 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I've said it before and I'll keep saying. 'Social housing' wasn't a problem when I joined this board around 2005. Social housing was hardly ever discussed. Now it seems to be that everyone in a social house is onto a good little number. Now we have 'social housing envy' 'How dare someone have a 'reasonable rent' get repairs done and have a secure tenancy?' BURN THEM! All of this is because of TOTAL MARKET FAILURE Some of you are being taken for fools by the Tories (as usual) its about doing away of the social housing in this country, get the people to hate those that have social housing get policy designed to hate those that live in social housing and little steps do away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Ignoring what I'm actually saying and posting lots of stuff I haven't said and then pretending it's what I'm saying is pretty pointless to be honest. I'll try again... Why did you write that? I'm the one who's stuck to the question of whether social housing is subsidised and repeatedly asked you to define or justify what you mean. Where I made assumptions because you wouldn't say anything substantive I even blatantly said so. There's little point continuing a one-way exchange, but if you're referring to the bit about costs vs costs + mark-up, what else does raising rents from near breakeven to breakeven + rentier profits amount to. You think forcing high earners to pay 'market' rates will lower overall costs and/or feed back into better provision for low earners? That's not how the property market works - theoretically or practically as should be evident by now. Pushing social tenants into the same scenario as private ones, where they cover cost + implied land rental is just backwards and will lead to less social housing and higher costs for tenants and the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Yes (crash2006) it looks that way. As I`ve said, I get 33.60 a week, my wife (who is not a tenant) could get 30.000 a year so their is a danger of paying this `tax` But still there`s `joy` at getting £1,000,000 inheritance tax cut.. 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.