To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

It isn’t provided below cost.

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

And people in social housing who do not claim a penny in benefits either.

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. And people in social housing who get housing benefit (now uc) as well as other government subsidies for housing

lol - it’s you who has made stuff up. Social housing providers (as a whole) are very bad at getting value for money. And there is no legal requirement for social rents to include an element that reflects the costs of building, that’s completely made up. same as the nonsense you claim that social housing providers never get any grants. That flies in the face of centuries of government recorded spending.

All organizations can’t spend more than they get in on an ongoing basis. But social housing providers are not prohibited from getting grants- quite the opposite.

anyway, look it up.

And there are people in private housing that claim housing benefit.

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?

It wasn’t.

It doesn’t work like that though. That’s like saying everyone is a taxpayer so no one is a net beneficiary from benefits. In reality the people claiming benefits or living in social housing are unlikely to be net contributors of tax.

and that’s how it should be - the purpose of benefits, social housing etc is for people who need them.

indeed. I grew up in social housing cos my mum (a nurse) couldn’t afford private housing. It was subsidized which is a good thing.

“We’ve” established nothing. You keep parroting nonsense, offering no evidence, in the hope you’ll convince. There is a legal requirement for social housing providers to cover repayment of building costs within rents and a requirement that the cumulative rents cover all the costs of maintaining and administering the stock. The older a property, the more likely it is to be fully paid for via the rents paid for it.

How can that be true and your claim that social housing providers legally must include building costs in the rent?

often social housing providers get grants to buy properties too. It doesn’t pay for itself- that’s a matter of public record. The taxpayer pays some of the cost. that’s the point- social housing is supposed to be subsidized to be affordable to people on lower incomes.

And you would have to move on after 10 years anyway.

I could probably stretch to a caravan 😆

Yes, if they want to buy a shed.

YY @vodkaredbullgirl my block of flats was built in 1977

Look it up. There is a multi billion pound program of grants on a yearly basis as we’ve already established. There’s no legal requirement to charge any proportion of building costs in rent and in any case often social housing providers haven’t built the property or haven’t built it recently.

something I DO see in Social housing is that while plenty of people take good care of their properties and maintain them as much as they can and decorate and take pride in keeping them looking nice, the higher percentage of people in SH with mental health issues, chaotic dysfunctional families and anti social personalities means that a high percentage of the houses end up with windows smashed in, furniture trashed, rubbish in the front gardens etc because there’s no money to pay to have it taken away… all of this gets fixed - “for free” by the council

Well duh! this thread is full of people who think social housing should only be for the most desperate. You reap what you sow

John Boughton (author of Municipal Dreams The Rise and Fall of Council Housing) on the welfarisation of council housing.
//www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/the-rise-and-fall-of-council-housing-56139
Inthe 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent
Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

Not on my wages lol

apart from anything else housing was often built some time ago or transferred from other bodies

And paid for via rents. In the case of those built immediately post war paid for several times over.

Some people do. It’s certainly not impossible.

that’s not true. If it was true there could not be a yearly housing budget. Yet there is. Social housing providers get significant grant funding on a yearly basis

Does anyone get a new mortgage in their 50s? As in first time buyer. With perhaps not much of a deposit?