To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

Your assuming there are more suitable properties they can move too.
That's not always the case .

They'd also get benefits in private rentals then

Tax payers live in social housing too.

Eh? You think it’s not subsidised, even though the actually building of social housing is partly paid for with tax payers money? What is that if it’s not a subsidy?
And of course tax payers pay part or sometimes all of the rent for SOME people in social housing. As we should, because a secure, safe home should be available to all.
Personally, I’d like to see Angela Rayner confirm exactly how many of these 1.5m new homes that are apparently going to be built are going to be social houses? She’s said nothing so far, (well, in one interview she said “a vast swathe” but that could mean anything)
Waiting lists are huge, families are living in temporary, totally unsuitable accommodation, it’s dire for many.

No it doesn’t because at least 50% of them are “no income” rather than low income (or working on the black market) and only arrived a few years ago.

HAs do do this, but margins are extremely tight right now, and they wouldn't be able to afford to build much without further funding.

But building social housing is a worthwhile investment of public funds, and should- if built in sufficient quantities- bring the benefits bill down as less people claim housing element for inflated private rentals.

Not to be a show off but my home is beautiful ! Lifetime tenancy and succession rights . Nice area outstanding schools and I keep my home clean and tidy as do my neighbours we are very proud of our homes and gardens

Nope, not discounted either....

It might help you to look at social/ affordable rents as closer to what rent should cost, and private rents as grossly inflated.

My rent is 'market rate'.

When I first moved in it was only slightly more than the rent I had paid as a private tenant, but the annual increases have made it much more expensive than private.

My private rental was carpeted and had a built in oven, when I moved I got concrete floors and a space for a cooker.

As i understand it, the idea is that any profit from social housing once costs of building it are paid off, should then be used to fund building more social housing. It should be a self sufficient process rather than requiring continual government investment.

Maybe discounted is a better word than subsidised then?

Oh no, I bet you wish you had a disabled child too, then you might get all the goodies she does 🙄

70/80%ish of social housing tenants receive housing benefits. So for a significant portion, it will be essentially free housing.

My DSis is in social housing, specifically disabled social housing (her child is disabled). She's had new windows paid for, a new kitchen, an extension put in, and all manner of other smaller bits and bobs, all paid. She now wants to buy it.
Partner works full time in a decent job but 'keeps all his own money', whatever the fuck that means.

What the state pays for and towards needs massive reform.

That’s great you have been able to do that.

But unless your situation had stayed the same, and you decided to find a way to increase your salary.
Then your situation was only temporary, because you now have a partner, so your circumstances have been able to change.
For some of us that will probably never happen. I will have to rely on UC probably even if I moved miles away.

Ok so they are paying £. 150 a week rent on a house that the building costs have been paid off decades ago. What costs are not being covered. Bear in mine very few repairs are done?

I have a mortgage free flat. If someone paid me £150 a week to live there ( they paying the bills and council tax also) what " costs" of mine are they not covering

It is true, I can assure you. And social housing owned by the state or not-for-profit entities is a common good, and represents far better value to the taxpayer than subsidising buy to let landlords.

Built in large enough quantities, it represents the best way we have for stabilising property values, short of a highly damaging crash.

Depends on the area . The old builds in my area are 550 ish a month that's for a 3 bed. In private for this area its at least 2000. Mine is called affordable rent and is 1000 a month but its a large new build.

That's not what "subsidised" means, as already pointed out upthread. The only thing being subsidised is the mortgages of private landlords whose tenants have to claim housing costs from the state.

It's not that social rented housing is cheap, it's that private rented housing is expensive, and I think it's really important to normalise this perspective.

It does need reviewing, the best outcome would be affordable housing for everyone. I do feel though that life long tenancy agreements are wrong for social housing. My parent in laws have been offered a one bedroom but have refused to move.. They see there council house as there house when it’s not, they we’re given it 40 years ago because they had a young family. The rule should probably change to, yours until your children leave education and people would either have to downsize to whatever they are offered or private rent. It’s disgusting when you think of the amount of homeless families and children living in hotels or damp temporary accommodation on a housing list for years, yet you’ve got a four bedroom house being wasted on two 75 year olds who should have had to move out years ago.

The issue is that private rents are too high

It depends on people's frame of reference. Many will operate within a very narrow circle of friends and acquaintances and will read and believe the tabloids.

If people are well rounded then they will know how the world turns.

And the fact that low income people didn't cause the property boom in London, largely didn't profit from it and yet are the ones who are suffering most from its effects doesn't offend your "strong sense of justice"?

They’re not paying above cost.

They are subsidised as in paying much cheaper rents than in the private sector. A massive advantage. Tenancies are also much more secure. A win really for people who get them.