Council houses owning brand new cars?

Maybe subsidy is the wrong word. But without doubt, council house rent is significantly cheaper than open market rent. Therefore, some of those living in council properties may well have more disposable income than private renters or home owners paying a hefty mortgage. The irritation comes because those of us with mortgages or paying private rents, receiving no benefits, paying for prescriptions, paying tax etc are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to purchase and run a new car.

From Cambridge City Council website:

^If the tenant pays their own rent in full, as a tenant of a local
authority, they are paying the full rent charged by the local authority
for the occupation of the dwelling. Social housing rents are well below
market rents, but are not subsidised rents. The Housing Revenue Account
(HRA), which is where all of the properties are accounted for if they are
owned by a local authority, is what is known as 'ring fenced', which means
all of the costs of providing the social housing need to be met from the
rental income received from them. The housing fund cannot be subsidised
from other areas of Council activity i.e.; Council Tax, planning fees,
parking income etc. Under the same rules, the HRA cannot use its funds to
subsidise the rest of the Council's services.^

What about the government's Green Homes Scheme? Hundreds of millions given out to housing associations to improve their eco-efficiency of their houses? So, thousands of housing association properties massively benefitting from new solar panels, ground source heat-pumps, new double glazing, new doors, exterior wall insulation, the list goes on.

For the best.

Some do. They are taking money from the state though.

Central government has a direct housing budget of billions a year for housing associations and local authorities. Then there are billions more in indirect subsidies

No it doesn’t. In some cases the rent might pay the ongoing costs (but often not when you take all costs such as pension for workers into account) but in no case are they paying the value of the property. Nor are they paying the tax subsidies they are given on an ongoing basis

People who live in Ha or council, work too and pay tax.

Tax revenue doesn’t go anywhere near housing accounts.

Possibly. And not everyone has to go through some sort of trauma to get social housing. Nor does everyone who does get social housing

Of course they do. Well, through the conduit of the taxpayer.

Define ‘need’

Once again - because it obviously didn’t sink in the previous numerous times this has been explained - HA and council housing accounts are separate from general expenditure and don’t cross pollinate. These accounts have to cover all the costs of the housing.

There is NO subsidy.

Well they could buy the property?

they are in need….in need of secure housing. Money doesn’t come into it. It’s the security that’s of value. As they approach pension age they will need security more than ever..

Yes it does. The state pays billions every year in grants to local authorities and housing associations to build housing. That’s taxpayer money. Yet many benefitting from these subsidized properties are not in need.

That’s the property being subsidized. Rented for less than market rent to someone who could afford more. Losing money for the public purse.

Or, how about they live like millions of other people, who pay such a large percentage of their salaries on their (unsubsidized) private rent/mortgage that they cannot afford any holidays at all, or to run a car, or own a pet?

The state doesn’t subsidise social housing - for the umpteenth time. 🙄

I am not letting the state partly subsidise the cost of my home, thereby freeing up a chunk of my salary to pay an expensive car loan.

Are you suggesting we are giving people cheap rents to compensate people for having had tough lives? Nice idea but in doing so we take money away from other things.

If the state wants to do something - get more people out of B&Bs and other temporary housing for instance - it first has to work out where the money is coming from to do that. There is no magic money tree. I suggest asking people who can afford it to pay a full market rent. I can’t see that it’s an unfair thing to do.

But it isn't all their money, is it? By living in council housing they are allowing themselves to be partly subsidised by the state.

Council housing should be there for those who are most in need.

If the one not living in social housing had to go through whatever the other one had to go through to get that social housing (usually homelessness, severe deprivation, domestic violence, disability, care leavers etc) to save a few hundred quid a month, do you think they'd choose to?

Tell that to the multiple CCJs and house repossession, a 10k car, a 5k bank loan and multiple smaller debts that are on my credit history after 18 years, even despite evidence I did not take out the debts.

Make your mind up. You said it was "All kinds of wrong" that two people who work full time can live in social housing. Which is it?

Actually, they can spend their money on what they like….same as you do!

it’s nobodies business….and allowed by whom?

What’s that got to do with social housing being subsidised? It was never intended to make a profit.