To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

The relevant point is that you are suggesting that SH isn't subsidised and that the government directly funding or effectively providing very cheap capital to build SH isn't a form of long term subsidy. Of course it is. If they didn't do this then SH rents would have to be higher to meet the costs of repaying the original build cost or the capital to build the property would have to be repaid directly by the state and then it would be super obvious it's a subsidy. Just because the money is all front loaded, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make a difference long term.

The comparison with a mortgage is just to illustrate the point I was making. We all know how someone paying half our mortgage or half the build cost for our house would impact our ongoing payments. It is the same with SH.

I would love to know why you're so determined to prove that She isn't subsidised. Do you live in it and want to believe you pay your way?

It’s quite straightforward. Are you paying the full market value rent for the property? If not it’s subsidised.

Disagree. Any landlord can choose to rent for under market value. We see MumsNet landlords doing this all the time.

It’s quite straightforward. Are you paying the full market value rent for the property? If not it’s subsidised.

Sure if you like. It’s still tax payer money. If someone got half of their mortgage paid off by the gov / tax payers are you at subsidy yet?

You are correct OP in that it was @EasternStandard who mentioned UC in relation to SH. This is a red herring in that the housing element of UC can equally well be applied to private sector housing.

One may as well say that private rentals are subsidised by the government.

There have been posts on grants and UC re social housing as I googled and posted it here.

I haven't mentioned UC. Can you please address the points I made and explain how funding half the build costs with taxpayer funded money or even taxpayer backed loans isn't a form of subsidy? If it isn't then please can the state either pay off half my mortgage or build me a house where I will pay half and they can pay half.

@EasternStandard and OP: UC can be applied to any type of housing. In no way is it specific to SH.

I am with Hansard and @Blossomtoes on this. When most people griple about SH subsidies, they are ill informed. You illustrated this by bringing UC into the picture when it applies equally to the private sector.

This thread isn't about whether SH is subsidised or not so why would I have mentioned it before @blossomtoes assertion that SH isn't subsidised and her insistence than a random Hansard article proves this is just plain fanciful.

I absolutely disagree with your assertion that subsidising building costs doesn't equate to a long term subsidy. Of course it does. The mortgage comparison is absolutely relevant. If I came and paid off half your house now then your ongoing costs would be lower and you would be paying much less every month. That's how it works with SH too. Subsidy isn't just in the form of someone handing over money every month to meet running costs. The costs of running my home day to day are less than the cost of my mortgage.

I did not gloss over the building grants. I believe I am the first person on this thread to have mentioned them!

These cannot be thought of as ongoing subsidies. When most people say ‘social housing is subsidised’ we know they are not referring to building grants. Otherwise someone else - you, perhaps? - would have mentioned them before p27, to say nothing of the other two long threads on this topic.

If Burnham wants to implement significant changes then he will have to put them through parliament in the same way as the same way the council tax was put through parliament in 1992.

There will be no "sidestepping of democracy".

No, you don't just get to side step the idea of democracy because of perceived inequality.

Council tax is a local tax to pay for local services. It is a fundamental part of local democracy as the council is able set tax rates and spend the revenue. This is why we have local elections and councils can set out different visions at a local level and appeal to local voters.

Virtually every other tax doesn't work like this and places like Blackpool already benefits hugely through national subsidies. The people of Westminster are almost certainly already hugely subsidising the people of Blackpool.

Ok, how about they certainly do.

The average annual income tax paid by residents in Westminster is approximately £43,700, in contrast, residents in Blackpool pay an average of around £2,890 per year,

I honestly wonder about your frames of reference. You didn't seem to know that rural areas were more expensive to serve, you don't think SH is subsidised, you thought Westminster might not be subsidising Blackpool....