To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

More homeless people then 🙄

On the streets then for many then.
We are better than that, thnkfully.

And next pandemic i would be even less inclined to worry about protecting my "betters"

Heh could you imagine the likes of London if that happened. The elite wandering around wondering why everywhere was shut.

I quite like that idea actually.

🙄

Social housing and also housing benefit could be removed. That way all citizens are paying the same rate and no one is receiving preferential treatment. Citizens would gravitate to areas within their budget

Council Housing may be subsidised but imagine how much higher the Housing Benefit bill would be if it wasn’t. That’s the reason councils were stopped setting their own rents.

There's a shortage of housing like bungalows that are helpful for older people.
Lots of people like a garden, even a small one and to have family come home and stay over. A one bed third floor flat isn't helpful.

And that anyone who drives is grateful for their taxpayer subsidised transport?

That's a great point about subsidy being everywhere maverickess.

We, the taxpayers, are subsidising everyone's plane flights through a refusal to adequately tax aviation fuel, whilst they destroy the planet. I do hope everyone tripping off on holiday is suitably grateful to the taxpayers for this? thought not

@Maverickess
It's not free or close to being free, it's cheaper than private rent, but the fact this place was subsidised to be built 50 odd years ago is a small part of why it's cheaper and not the only factor
This just simply isn't true. Who paid to build your house, how they funded the build and who currently owns it is a huge part of why Social Housing is cheaper. The cost of capital is often the biggest single factor in determining what the occupant of accommodation is paying. Even if you take the example of a homeowner with a mortgage, they would pay on average around £150k in interest on a £250k mortgage. Once they have paid the mortgage off after say 25 years then they have a hell of a lot of money tied up in the house. If they released this equity then they could be earning £12K by just having money sat in the bank and potentially even more if they invested in other products and stocks. So there is an opportunity cost associated with tying your money up in housing too.

The fact that the government funds and subsidises so much of the initial build cost, the HA uses cheap or free money to fund the rest and they don't expect their money to deliver a reasonable ROI like most private investors is hugely important. It's what make the model completely unscaleable even if you take away the profit making aspect of such an enterprise. There simply isn't that much discounted land or state capital to support building the amount of SH we arguably need.

I absolutely sympathise with why you can't downsize if the rules don't allow it and think that this is clearly madness. I don't think your child should be able to inherit your tenancy as this is unfair on other potentially more needy people that aren't lucky enough to have a parent with a tenancy to inherit. This is a state subsidised benefit so is different than a private asset.

I think the point you make about subsidised low paid workers is relevant but I would add that it's not just net contributors and those that are highly paid that benefit from this, it is also low paid workers who also use services and products provided by other low paid workers. So basically everyone feels entitled to subsidised low priced services and goods but only a few get to benefit from subsidised housing. There isn't enough subsidised housing for all the low paid workers and things like RTB and lifetime tenancies that can be inherited reduce the supply even further. This is why it is a different type of entitlement as it is a benefit that is restricted to the few and isn't available to the masses.

@Bumpitybumper and @Bushmillsbabe

The issue I have with the 'It's subsidised!' is that people have conjured up an image that my rent is either nothing, or so close to nothing that 'the taxpayer' (of which I am one, not a net contributer but I do pay tax and NI on my earnings as does everyone) is basically paying for me to live for free, or so close to free it's negligible, and judge me morally, 6 ways from Sunday because of it.
It's not free or close to being free, it's cheaper than private rent, but the fact this place was subsidised to be built 50 odd years ago is a small part of why it's cheaper and not the only factor.

As already explained HAs are non profit, have their own repairs teams, they offer less than private rent with what they are responsible for Vs the tenant than private rent and they are designed so that people on low incomes can afford somewhere half decent to live. That's their whole premise.

In private or SH a rent is charged and the tenant pays it, in both, that money could come from private earned income or benefits ('the taxpayer) or a mix of the two, SH is cheaper Vs private because of the reasons highlighted above. So private lets can also be subsidised by 'the tax payer' only that's usually going into private hands rather than a community resource.

And subsidy exists across all of society, when you use any service that's traditionally low paid you're benefiting from lower prices or taxes than they might be, because at least some of the people need more money to live on than the job provides. We end up paying the cost of it one way or the other, either by benefits and SH or a higher base price so those things are not needed.

And people feel just as entitled to those services being subsidised by low wages as you say people are to social housing - but it seems to be more acceptable because they might be net contributers or higher earners or the 'squeezed middle' and see themselves as the saviour of society, paying for everything and ignoring the fact they do actually benefit from those subsidies too, provided by the 'squashed bottom', people are also not backwards in complaining bitterly about the 'lack of service' in return for what they're paying - which isn't enough to survive on without subsidy. So yes, there's entitlement all over society, it's not just the remit of the poorer among us.

When it comes to a lifetime tenancy, I have one. But it is not tied to this property. It is any property the HA has available that I qualify for.

I've already said I am more than willing to downsize, but the majority of HA stock is 3 beds, the 2 beds are for over 55's or disabled tenants, I'm neither so don't qualify, and most one beds are ring fenced for care leavers, prison leavers, people with mental health issues or social needs, those who need more support than I do, moving into one even if I could would definitely be depriving someone who needs it more. And while my DD lives with me, they won't allow over occupancy even if we're willing to (which I would be), a smaller place would benefit me as it would be cheaper to run and easier to look after.

I am encouraged to invest in this place, spend money keeping it nice, but I limit what I do because ultimately whatever I do will be ripped out and it will be taken back to the bare bones when I move out, and if I didn't have some security that I will at least be here for another 10 years until I turn 55 and qualify for a bungalow, I'm not going to invest what little I do have on stuff that I can't take with me when I do leave and that will just end up in a skip. I've put carpets down and keep them in good condition - but I'll take them with me when I go for my new place, I keep the garden clean and tidy but its very basic and mostly things that I can take with me, but I've put a lot of time and effort into it, turning it from the dump left by the last tenants to a bit of green and repaired fences and bits to be functional but it isn't pretty to be honest.

I am (was? Child is an adult now) a single parent, I have no partner or spouse and my child lives with me. On the event of my death she may inherit my tenancy if she meets the requirements to have a SH tenancy (which considering she is in her final year at university and her starting salary is more than my salary now, is doubtful, but it would have ensured she had somewhere to live while she completed that should I have died) it would pass to her in exactly the same way it would to a spouse if I had one.

All those saying we should move out and buy our own place….i actually could get a mortgage here on my SH home through right to buy scheme.

happy with that?

Of course there are more ways to contribute to a society than paying tax and you are absolutely right to highlight that lots of people earning less than a living wage are fulfilling societally important roles that add value to us all. I wouldn't for one second deny this and I think we all should be grateful for the people that do this. I think most people would agree that housing low paid, essential workers is why SH should exist alongside housing those who genuinely can't work due to disability or illness.

The controversy though is around the entitlement that some people have towards tax payer funded benefits like SH. I mean even the denial that it is subsidised in the first place speaks volumes and the reluctance to accept that it really isn't possible for us all to be housed in subsidised housing. Too many people think that it is their right to have housing (and lots of other things) subsidised by everyone else irrespective of whether they actually need such a large home anymore or if they're actually doing anything societally useful.

It is the genuinely needy that I feel sorry for as ultimately they are the ones that lose out. There aren't homes for families working in shortage, essential, underpaid industries because too many people are sat on lifetime tenancies and don't want to give up the advantage this gives them. They truly believe that they are entitled to essentially block other people from being houses adequately because they don't want to pay more rent or don't want to move to a smaller property or worse area. It is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed.

I don't think anyone suggests taking it away from those who are earning low salaries, especially those carrying out essential roles. As you say, everyone should be paid a living wage and not need to rely on benefits or subsidised housing, but until this changes then this support needs to be provided.

The 2 points of disagreement seem to be

• lifetime tenancies without review of circumstances, that people remain in large social housing properties as a couple or single person, when they may be able to move to a smaller private rent for same cost, or stay in social housing when increase salary and could afford to privately rent or buy
• whether social housing rents cover the costs of building and maintaining them and are subsidised

Where's the gratitude for that? Non existent that's where, you're told to go and get a better job, while people wring their hands because of recruitment and retention problems in areas like social and childcare

Yep the cognitive dissonance is stark

I'm grateful that I can afford somewhere to live on the pittance I earn because the work I have done and still do is completely unvalued but needed and demanded by society.

Scores of people are effectively subsidising the services we use every day by way of low wages, so the cost is lower to either the tax payer or the customer. Where's the gratitude for that? Non existent that's where, you're told to go and get a better job, while people wring their hands because of recruitment and retention problems in areas like social and childcare.

So maybe this gratitude should extend to the people doing the lowest paid work in society, that we all benefit from, that means they need social housing or benefit top ups in the first place to not be living under a bridge somewhere unable to afford to live without it, because they're also subsidising services people use every day without a thought, by way of being paid less than can be independently lived on.

Be careful what you wish for, because taking away that subsidy won't just affect people like me who need it in the first instance, but the people who need and rely on the services we provide too, that think they pay for everyone else to have the life of Riley while they struggle, when in fact they're also benefitting from being subsidised by paying less to start with, because someone is doing the work for less than they can live on.

There is social housing being built, around 20,000 per year on average - which is the size of small to medium town being built every year! The issue is that roughly the sane number are being lost to Right to buy, so not within current housing stock. Saying that, there are still people living in those, so we are housing an extra 20 thousand families year on year.
Part of the challenge is the breakdown in families - so where a mum and a dad and 2 children were living in 1 property, they are now living across 2 properties, meaning demand has gone up, so rents have gone up. Of course, people shouldn't stay in relationships which aren't working for them, but this change has increased the strain on housing, and on other services.

This is astonishingly rare. Social housing usually is built with extremely cheap capital, land or through doing a deal with developers for a percent of homes to be SH.

The reason so little SH has been built is because none of this is really scaleable.

But they do. They borrow the money and the rents incorporate an element for repayment. Not that it’s even relevant because so little social housing has been built in the recent past.

It is subsidised. Directly or indirectly or even through opportunity cost.

Could a non for profit company without any interaction with the state afford to build accommodation for SH tenants and charge the same rent that is currently being charged to SH tenants? They absolutely couldn't.

I don't think people should be able to hog under occupied accommodation or stay in subsidised social housing when they can clearly afford to house themselves.

It’s a good thing they don’t then, because social housing isn’t subsidised.

Agree on all of that.

Singapore is not comparable to the UK. Its GDP per capita is almost double the UK. Put simply, there is a lot more money to go around. Also Singapore uses a hell of a lot more immigrant labour compared to the UK and these people will not be eligible for social housing unless they gain permanent residence which isn't easy for unskilled workers.

Thinking about all this maybe look at other countries. Take Singapore for example. It's a modern well off country yet the majority of its residents ( nearly 80%) live in social housing.
Yet is doesn't seem to suffer a huge amount of anti social behaviour which according to some are all social housing tenants causing it