Council houses owning brand new cars?

Which is why councils are skint. My goodness I give up!!!

In offering accommodation at less than full open market value the taxpayer is paying an opportunity cost. This is the cost of missing out on the opportunity of getting the full value for the property.

it is exactly arguments like yours which is why public finances are in such a bad way. You are not looking at the cost to the taxpayer of offering sub market value rent. This is money that could be fairly charged to improve others lives.

Very confused argument I'm afraid. That just isn't how council budgets work.

A lot of the new builds that go to housing associations are rent to buy properties and only people who work can rent them.

I don't believe you should patronise people when you have no idea of their knowledge and background.
(A) I was responding to the overly simplistic idea that people on benefits should be charged less rent than those on no benefits. As I have said twice now, that plan was previously proposed and councils didn't take it up because it's unworkable, non cost effective and does not make sense in the scheme of building settled and mixed communities. So we can put that one to bed.

(B) You said social housing is subsidised. It isn't. Here's an example in the form of a FOI to Cambridge council (as good as any).

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.

I hope this now makes sense.

Two people. Both accountants, both on £60k a year. One lives in social housing (for historical reasons) and pays £500 a month, one lives in private rented, same property, pays £1,500 a month. In what way is not charging the social housing dweller the full £1,500 good for public finances?

@Freeasa Many council tenants pay tax.

The taxpayer. If the person was paying open market value then the housing association would have more money to invest in more housing, getting people out of b&bs, giving them better lives and saving the government vast amounts of money. Temporary housing is one of the four costs that take up 75% of council budgets (along with adult social care, child social care and SEN educational provision). If we spend less on temporary housing we would have much better public services.

But that is basically what happens.
Only the rent is more like £500 / £600 to start with.

Some people get all the rent paid on benefits, some get part of it paid and others pay full rent.

The rent for social housing covers the actual cost. Open market rent is based on profit. A subsidy is when someone else is covering part of the cost which isn’t the case with social housing. HAs and council housing accounts have to wash their own faces.

People get PIP to meet the expenses of being disabled, so we are told. So the fact that someone gets PIP has no effect on their disposable income.

Let’s try again and you might understand it. Open market rent of a property (what it would get on the private rental market) is £1000.

Person A is on high benefits. They get housing benefit that meets the cost of housing, £1,000.

Person B gets some benefits. Their housing benefit is £500, their rent is £500.

Person C gets no benefits. Their rent is £1,000.

The overall effect on the state is that they get an open market rent out of person C who needs no subsidy, and the extra money raised can go back investing in expanding the UK’s social housing provision which is an excellent thing. the country is skint. If you can afford to pay a fair price for social housing, I can’t see why you shouldn’t.

It's really not. Once the build cost of the property has been recouped, the rental value for a non profit organisation is the running costs (maintenance, staff and so on). Plus the value to the local council and community of having secure and settled tenants can be measured in monetary terms, if that's your thing.

Who do you imagine is paying the subsidy?

Yep, it basically boils down to anyone on benefits and/or in SH is not allowed anything nice. If they can afford nice things, they should not be on benefits/in SH.

Well here's something else to ponder....

What if council tenants don't buy "luxury" cars but drive an old banger and spend money on holidays instead...or designer handbags...or pedigree dogs?

Or is it just cars that piss people off because they can physically see a car on a council driveway?

Are you paying the open market rent? Because if not, the rental value of the property is more than you are being charged and therefore you are getting a subsidy. This is very basic economics.

Not subsidised.

So what about people who get PIP but have a luxury car? Which camp do they fall into? Enhanced mobility is c £310 a month and people have been complaining about SH tenants paying hundreds a month on cars.
What if you're on benefits but the landlord looks through your window and sees a nice TV or an expensive laptop? What if you're not on benefits but you don't earn much?

No they shouldn't. I'm presuming you donate your money to needy families to help pay their bills.
After all if you have surplus money don't needy people need it?

Of course it is. But they should be paying a higher, market rate for their council house rent rather than splurging excess salary on an expensive car.

There simply isn't enough council housing to go around even for those people who can barely meet their rent, and couldn't afford to even buy a decent push bike to get around on.

So you live in subsidised public property with 4 vehicles (albeit ignore the inheritance, fair enough), but if you can afford 3 vehicles (I presume the van is for work, so again discount that)… actually. It sure where I’m going with this as we live extremely centrally with 3 kids so get by with one, and other people need two because they love more remotely… I retract my comment ! Have a lovely evening

Bad debt is wrote off your credit file after 6 years. If it’s still there you need to tell the companies the money is owed to to remove it.

You also may want to get off you high horse. If you check what I actually wrote up the thread, I support people receiving money for mobility vehicles/help when disadvantaged. Perhaps if we didn’t let people living in social housing when they didn’t need it m, there would be more accommodation for people like you.

I know what the phrase means. I was questioning what pp meant to imply by using it in the context of the conversation e.g. in response to being asked why hatred of social tenants has increased since Grenfell.

Not at all. I’m saying if you qualify for high benefits then your rent will be low. If you don’t qualify for any benefits you’ll be paying market rent. Seems a fair and easy to administer way to do it.

‘Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant’

This is a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, which refers to the benefits of openness and transparency.

I have no idea what PPs think this means, but please research this before attaching sinister connotations.

Here are good places to start:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/opinion/the-news-comment-transparency-would-help-to-reassure-on-fire-safety-1105353

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/london-fire-brigade-branded-institutionally-racist-and-misogynist-after-independent-review-79234

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/sunlight-is-the-best-disinfectant/

There's no upper salary limit for living in council houses. They are fair rents and rise every year. And are a secure tenancy. But much cheaper than private renting which isn't secure tenancy.
I imagine a lot of people are just below the level for being able to get a mortgage so they are having nice cars. Our 23 plate only cost 8K for example. But we paid our mortgage off 20 years ago. Both of us retired, and are in the fortunate position of having no money worries.