To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

But if she had bought it, she would have paid less in mortgage than she has now in rent.
But it is still somehow "subsidised".
Why do people keep using "oh, but your SH is subsidised" as some sort of punch down?

That’s great. I’m surrounded by houses built then, not sure what the issue is. If the gov cover half the initial cost it’s a subsidy from the taxpayer.

DM's house was built in the 1930s. Not all SH houses are new. Some are fucking ancient.

Obviously we could remedy that but I wouldn’t imagine it would be easy (unless I’ve missed something!) @gotmyselfintoapickle

I have not thought about it too much, but there are more complicated areas of the tax system. We have also invented things from television to anti-viral medication, so fixing the Child Benefit threshold should not be difficult. There is a canton in Switzerland that levies its equivalent of council tax based on a deemed property value multiplied by household inomce; a coefficient. It should not be beyond us. Until it is fixed, people will be rightly angry at being wronged.

I dont see how it is subsidised when she has been paying rent for 40 years and will continue to pay rent until she dies.

They are, still, to use your word a "fucking" luxury. Time doesn't change who subsidised them,

DM's house was built in the 1930s. Not all SH houses are new. Some are fucking ancient.

This. If someone else pays for a new house it’s much easier to cover the yearly charge so it ‘washes its face’.

There is, at least fundamentally, nothing equitous about taxation. Individuals having their efforts partially sequestered by a bigger entity is, at the fundamental level, theft. Where taxation has to be understood is where it can improve society through a collective responsibilty that funds investment to make society better for all of us. When it is correctly understood, the rich and poor can see the benefit of taxation and have no problem with it. I deal with this every day.

Where the concept of taxation starts to break down is mainly down to two things. The first is iniquities in the system. A good example of this is the Child Benefit charge where a couple with joint income above the charge threshold will not pay it, but a single income household above the threshold will notwithstanding the single income household has a lower overall income. This is an unfairness in the tax code which could easily be rectified. But it leaves a bitter taste to those affected. The second is fraud or negligence in the spending departments. We only need to think of the PPE scandals and have some awareness of Medpro and Baroness Mone, to understand our civil servants make terrible decisions. There are more examples. But essentially if we pay £100 of tax and know that £20 of that has been wasted in buying half a dozen pencils for the Home Office, then of course we should not be paying any more tax. We want the fat cut out first.

Any state sticking its shovels into the endeavours of individuals is prima facie wrong, until you introduce the concept of a collective responsibilty that is run ethically and efficiently. Then it all makes sense. We still have a long way to go. We need some very effective leadership with longevity to change things. We need some very clear and firm consequences for those who get it wrong.

I really do care about the waste in the system, more than I do about Andy Burnham putting my council tax up £250 a month.

There is, at least fundamentally, nothing equitous about taxation. Individuals having their efforts partially sequestered by a bigger entity is, at the fundamental level, theft. Where taxation has to be understood is where it can improve society through a collective responsibilty that funds investment to make society better for all of us. When it is correctly understood, the rich and poor can see the benefit of taxation and have no problem with it. I deal with this every day.

Where the concept of taxation starts to break down is mainly down to two things. The first is iniquities in the system. A good example of this is the Child Benefit charge where a couple with joint income above the charge threshold will not pay it, but a single income household above the threshold will notwithstanding the single income household has a lower overall income. This is an unfairness in the tax code which could easily be rectified. But it leaves a bitter taste to those affected. The second is fraud or negligence in the spending departments. We only need to think of the PPE scandals and have some awareness of Medpro and Baroness Mone, to understand our civil servants make terrible decisions. There are more examples. But essentially if we pay £100 of tax and know that £20 of that has been wasted in buying half a dozen pencils for the Home Office, then of course we should not be paying any more tax. We want the fat cut out first.

Any state sticking its shovels into the endeavours of individuals is prima facie wrong, until you introduce the concept of a collective responsibilty that is run ethically and efficiently. Then it all makes sense. We still have a long way to go. We need some very effective leadership with longevity to change things. We need some very clear and firm consequences for those who get it wrong.

I really do care about the waste in the system, more than I do about Andy Burnham putting my council tax up £250 a month.

Fairness is a totally nebulous concept.

What is ‘fair’ about paying CGT if you make money investing in a company but not if you make money on your PPR? What’s ‘fair’ about council tax or SDLT for example?

We tend to accept taxes we are used to and object to new taxes - it’s got little to do with fairness.

It is obvious that I was addressing your comment that ‘SH rents do not even touch the sides of the costs to pay for and maintain them. You are delusional.’

Various people are having a discussion, as yet unresolved, about what the contributions of government to the initial costs are. There is a complete absence of hard data, so claims mean nothing I have just shown that on average the ongoing costs are covered by rent.

Someone calling another MumsNetter delusional should at least provide data to back up her rudeness.

And who’s paying for the actual building? That’s free of charge is it?!

According to last year’s figures average SH rent is about £490 per month or £5880 per year. The average cost of maintaining a unit of SH including maintenance and repairs of the individual property, the common area and the management fees is estimated to be somewhere between £5K and £6K.

Rent is going up by 4.8% since these figures.

Social housing washes its own face.

😂😂😂. SH rents do not even touch the sides of the costs to pay for and maintain them. You are delusional.

The existing SH washes its own face.
More money needs to be invested because their is a serious lack of SH.

But seriously, what do you have against SH in general? I get the feeling you are not for it at all.

The existing SH washes its own face.
More money needs to be invested because their is a serious lack of SH.

But seriously, what do you have against SH in general? I get the feeling you are not for it at all.

But if SH washes it's face then it should be able to funded like any other housing. The cost of build and how it's funded is part of it being self sustaining. It's like someone giving you a mansion and you saying that you aren't being subsidised to live there because you're paying all the bills and for all the maintenance. The fact you haven't had to pay towards the mansion in the first place means you've been hugely subsidised and prevents it from being replicated at volume.

I'm not necessarily against SH but I think people living there should be paying towards local services they use. I also think this is especially true when it isn't means tested. 130,000 households earn over £70k and live in subsidised SH and under this proposed new policy won't pay anything towards local services. How is this fair or a good use of limited resources?

The derail about SH is daft. Always the way... "you are in SH so you get a free house"... it is bull.
SH rents etc washes its face.
DM has been in her council house for 40 years. In what way is she being subsidised? (she claims no benefits apart from state pension)

I think it is a good thing at billions are being invested in SH. We need more of it, and inthe long term, it will bring the welfare bill down.