To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

They are in place in other countries, obviously.

@Bushmillsbabe I believe that anyone that uses state services should be grateful. These things aren't in place in other counties and it's very dangerous to not acknowledge that these are good things to have and someone somewhere is funding them.

Without this kind of recognition then we get mad policies like the non dom policies that drive the rich out of the country when we already have scarcity of net contributors. We also have people abusing the system and taking all they can get because they perceive it to be 'free' when it most certainly isn't.

Would you genuinely rather there not be social housing, and more of your precious taxpayers' money goes on paying the inflated rents of private landlords, subsidising their personal mortgages?

You would actually prefer to pay more tax as long as the ungrateful peasants get the kicking they deserve?

Nice.

I would actually suggest it's the complete opposite. So many posters on MN have a massive sense of entitlement and don't give a crap about tax payers. They don't even regard them as people with wants and needs just like them. They couldn't give a toss about the people actually subsidising them. Look on this thread and you will see proof of that. People declaring that they shouldn't be forced to give up their tax payer subsidised housing as this will mean they 'lose out'. When you drill down into it, what they actually lose out on is tax payer funded resources that they now feel they are entitled too. They don't feel like they should pay market value for a property in the same way that all the people actually funding their social housing have to.

I am glad we have a welfare state but sometimes I think that people have lost sight of the fact that the people that are beneficiaries of the system should be grateful to those who are funding them. Without the net contributors then the whole thing falls down. We can't all be subsidised through life.

Like some did with furlough

So what would happen if all the care workers quit tomorrow so they could become high earning net contributors.

@Bushmillsbabe I believe that anyone that uses state services should be grateful. These things aren't in place in other counties and it's very dangerous to not acknowledge that these are good things to have and someone somewhere is funding them.

Without this kind of recognition then we get mad policies like the non dom policies that drive the rich out of the country when we already have scarcity of net contributors. We also have people abusing the system and taking all they can get because they perceive it to be 'free' when it most certainly isn't.

I don't necessarily think they need to be grateful. Is everyone who uses the nhs, state schools, universal childcare grateful, probably not.
But definitely need to be respectful, and realistic

Also evident on here is lack of insight in who is actually a net contributor. Some people saying 'I work and pay tax and therefore I am subsidising myself', without recognising that they are only subsidising themself if they are a net contributor, which is unlikely unless they are a high earner, without children or significant health needs. DH and I have a combined annual salary of 80k, only benefit we get is the universal child benefit of around £20 per child per week, for 2 children. Both in state primary. I worked out that with schools cost, nhs use and the universal child benefit we are either neutral or slightly net takers. If we with our decent income are net takers, then most people are also. We rely on a relatively small number of very high earners (who probably use private schools and healthcare) to subsidise a lot of our public services.

I would actually suggest it's the complete opposite. So many posters on MN have a massive sense of entitlement and don't give a crap about tax payers. They don't even regard them as people with wants and needs just like them. They couldn't give a toss about the people actually subsidising them. Look on this thread and you will see proof of that. People declaring that they shouldn't be forced to give up their tax payer subsidised housing as this will mean they 'lose out'. When you drill down into it, what they actually lose out on is tax payer funded resources that they now feel they are entitled too. They don't feel like they should pay market value for a property in the same way that all the people actually funding their social housing have to.

I am glad we have a welfare state but sometimes I think that people have lost sight of the fact that the people that are beneficiaries of the system should be grateful to those who are funding them. Without the net contributors then the whole thing falls down. We can't all be subsidised through life.

I would actually suggest it's the complete opposite. So many posters on MN have a massive sense of entitlement and don't give a crap about tax payers. They don't even regard them as people with wants and needs just like them. They couldn't give a toss about the people actually subsidising them. Look on this thread and you will see proof of that. People declaring that they shouldn't be forced to give up their tax payer subsidised housing as this will mean they 'lose out'. When you drill down into it, what they actually lose out on is tax payer funded resources that they now feel they are entitled too. They don't feel like they should pay market value for a property in the same way that all the people actually funding their social housing have to.

I am glad we have a welfare state but sometimes I think that people have lost sight of the fact that the people that are beneficiaries of the system should be grateful to those who are funding them. Without the net contributors then the whole thing falls down. We can't all be subsidised through life.

But you brought it up! be you said you were a taxpayer therefore you paid for social housing that you live in. Now you’re saying you’re on benefits. Fine. but benefits are government funded and people on benefits are not net contributors to taxation (with a few rare exceptions). So if you don’t want to be reminded of it - don’t bring it up.

My mum lived in social housing as did my whole family growing up. There’s nothing wrong with that. But my family were not net contributors then. Just a fact

It’s to make them feel superior and a bit better than the rest of us

they arent

they are sad….

So what is being suggested is that the rent covers the day to day running costs maintenance etc, including paying the salaries of all those employed by that HA, so that means its not subsidised?

But construction costs should be part of the overall calculations, along with the cost of buying the land, worked out at commercial prices, even if the HA got a discount and didn't actually pay as much as that. With these costs divided over a specific time period, service and maintenance etc added, to come up with how much it costs to provide this accomodation and that compared with the rent received.

Why does it need to be said though?
I am on benefits. Why do I need to be told I am being funded by taxpayers? I pay tax on things I buy. I am a tax payer too.
Why do people like me need to be reminded of this? All the fucking time on MN.
WHy?

You seem to be conflating rents and construction costs there. XenoBitch clearly referred to rents.

That’s a myth. Social housing is subsidized by the taxpayer. Look at the latest budget

I’ve already done this. but ultimately if you can’t accept that social housing is built by grants at all, then I can’t help you. It’s reality

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8963/

There’s a paper setting out some facts. Why don’t you now post your evidence for your claims that there have never been grants to social housing providers and legally they’re not allowed grants. Oh and refer us to the law you claim that requires them to include building costs in rent.

No, you post the figures. Burden of proof is on you.

That’s a myth. Social housing is subsidized by the taxpayer. Look at the latest budget

No. Private rents are very inflated. Social housing rates are what it should be for everyone.

Tell you what, instead of telling me to look it up, you give me some links to the wealth of information you claim to have.

Indeed. But their housing is still being subsidized by the state. Because it’s provided at below cost.

But you brought it up! be you said you were a taxpayer therefore you paid for social housing that you live in. Now you’re saying you’re on benefits. Fine. but benefits are government funded and people on benefits are not net contributors to taxation (with a few rare exceptions). So if you don’t want to be reminded of it - don’t bring it up.

My mum lived in social housing as did my whole family growing up. There’s nothing wrong with that. But my family were not net contributors then. Just a fact