Discrepancy between social housing rents verses private sector rents - how is this legal/fair?

Al0uise I have owned homes and rented them, my level of pride has remained the same. Rather judgemental to suggest that people who rent create slums.

Whilst people worry about passing on a legacy of wealth through the capitalist dream of property acquisition and argue about fairness, nearly half the worlds children in the developed world are living in poverty.

The American dream of owing property has never worked and after the Credit crisis brought about by the greed of lenders it is now worse than ever with middle class families living in tents. YES children living in tents.

Detroit- do some research, laid to waste by the human desire to profit and acquire.

That sounds horrendous Minimathsmouse no incentive, no design, no choice. It's human nature to care about your own property, if you remove ownership you remove pride.

The country would descend into one big slum.

I believe it's equitable for people to pay for their care where they have the means to do so but only under an economic and political system that creates inequality and envy.

Another way of looking at this would be to say, no one should own the home in which they live. Acquisition of profit and ownership of housing creates homelessness.

Through creating greater equality in education we could more easily match aspirations to skills with people paid according to effort and not position. Housing could be rented rather than purchased and we could all stop arguing about what the state should and shouldn't provide and what individuals should & shouldn't be responsible for.

Our sick and our elderly could be cared for at equal expense to everyone and we could all stop the politics of envy.

When everyone who needs a home, has a home, when every child who is living in deprivation is given a slice of opportunity I'll set my mind to worrying about the question of care home fees and inheritance.

I own a large house, hopefully it or any equity will be passed onto my children but if I get Alzheimers or any other illness I wouldn't necassarily expect the public purse to then pay £800 a week in nursing home fees when i'm sitting on a property worth say £500,000 regardless if i've worked hard for it all my life.

An ageing population is a demographic timebomb for the coming years, especially as stats say 1 in 3 babies born now can expect to live to 100. If we carry on with this attitude of expectation then all we do is saddle our children with excessive taxes to pay for all this nursing home care

It is a fair point to make that if people are forced to sell their homes to pay for their care, that it creates incentives to arrive in old age apparently destitute.

But I do think it is fair to expect the well-off to contribute to their care in old age, and I don't think anyone is entitled to an inheritance.

Where I live there appears to be lots of social housing being built. It is relatively cheap to build new housing comparatively to maintaining and repairing old post war stock. For a start there is no VAT to pay on new building but repairing buildings and refurbishing them is subject to 20% VAT.

"Council tenants in England who sub-let their homes will face up to two years in prison under government proposals.

The plans would see a new criminal offence of tenancy fraud, with a fine of up to £50,000 also possible.

Officials estimate that 160,000 tenants sub-let their homes to other people at cost of £5bn a year to the taxpayer.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps said some people were cheating the system by earning thousands of pounds letting out their council homes at market rents."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16499636

I suppose selling off the council houses saved the council money so they did not have to maintain them.

No ever comments on sub letting. This is very hush hush but i think there is an issue with council properties being rented out to a 3rd party and I think more needs to be done about this.

Very good point about Labour continuing with right to buy.

I understand that of course, but a statement like 'your children are being rewarded at someone elses expense' is just awful. We hope of course that we will never be in a position to need expensive residential care and obvioulsy the answer is to put more money into older peoples services. Then no one would need to worry about what they had or didn't have as everyone wold be treated the same. the point I am trying, and clearly failing, to get over is that those of us who have managed, and yes, it's very hard now, to be buying their own homes, should not be told they are 'rewarding' their families. We're doing for other reasons that that, and it would have been so much easier and cheaper for us to have sat still and waited for a council house. As i say, why didn't the last labour goverment stop the sell off of social housing straight away? Does anyone know?? Seriously, I am interested to find out.

I agree with the sairy about the selling of homes to pay for care. Often the people who owned their own homes are subsidising those elderly people who have no assets by paying higher fees for the home and the council will only pay a set amount.

It would be nice to pass something on to your children otherwise why should anyone bother if the state is going to seize everything. you have paid tax all your life and not claimed for anything up to now?

Salarygamp- if a house is not considered as part of a person's assets for the purpose of means testing residential care costs, you might as well not means test them at all.

The incentive would be for older people to cash up any shares, bank accounts and pensions they have and buy the biggest most expensive house they could afford in order to minimise their assets which could be assessed towards the cost of care.

I just find it a little unfair that it seems ok to take away what we have worked for whilst paying taxes and asking for nothing extra in return for them (just waiting for someone to remind me that schools, doctors etc are part of taxes, so thought would get that out of the way) I did not say my children shoud be 'rewarded' at everyone elses expense. The comment I was quoting suggested to me that we should have everything taken away from us to subsidide others. That really doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, taxes should be used in a better way of course they should. So why didn't the labour government immediately, on May 5th 1997, stop the selling of social housing?

So now I will be flamed for making an assumption that everyone who is housed in social housing is lazy and feckless - which is not what i am trying to get across.

well it is going up we had letter through door

saying new tennants will now have to pay 80% of the market rate for the area .

Which be intresting as Hb only covers the bottom 30% of the area

I am thanking my lucky stars i moved in before Jan this year and have lifetime ( as adapted house) becuase its going to be tricky for anyone now

"Why do people seem to hate those who have tried hard, got lucky or whatever."

Um, what?

I have my own home, so does everyone in my family.

I just don't think our trying hard/getting lucky/whatever means my children should get an inheritance subsidised with public money if I should need expensive care at the end of my life.

I guess you support higher taxes to pay for all this residential care of the elderly? It's recognised to be a major problem coming down the line.

We have to figure out a way to pay for it.

But sure, if your children need to be "rewarded" for your hard work at everybody else's expense, then that's totally fair.

*"Nobody should have to sell their home to pay care fees."

Why not?

If you're moving into a care home you don't need the home you're moving out of.

Do you really think public money should be used to subsidise large inheritances for the children of homeowners?*

So, my house, that I and my husband have worked our arses off to afford - getting no help from the government at all, even when we needed it, should have to sell our home when it comes to a stage where we need some help from that same government we have paid into all our lives??? That is really going to teach our kids that working hard is worth it!! Why do people seem to hate those who have tried hard, got lucky or whatever. Seriously, I find that quite appalling.

In countries in Europe, where renting is more popular, the law protects tenants, not landlords.

The rent can only go up by the rate of inflation

The landlord cannot, ever, evict a tenant as long as the tenant keeps paying his rent on time

Two simple rules that make renting a more viable option for everyone.

As a result, there are much fewer private LL, and more housing associations. it works out much fairer.

When I moved here I could not believe how easily I got kicked out of my rented flat, just because the LL's brother needed a place to crash for a few months. I kept having to move for reasons not related to my behaviour as a tenant. It would have been stressful with children in tow!

Yes but how will there be a private rental market if no one is allowed to make an investment or a profit - it will kill it and being as private LLs make up such a large number of people that provide homes to others, what happens to those tenants? I applaud the sentiment but it is only sentiment and is nor workable if no one is allowed to make a profit. It is perfectly legitimate that a Landlord makes a profit from his investment. It is a dangerous proposition to try and level them off, it will not and cannot happen. Social LLs can support lower rents because they own the housing stock, they make investments using these portfolios. Private Landlords have mortgages and these have to be paid. I think people have a fantasy that private LLs are making a huge income. It is rare. If someone bought their council house and then le it I think it is in the tiny majority. Most ime are like me who financed it from a deposit from my own pocket as a better return on investment than a savings account and their profits can be woped out in a couple of % interest rate rise. Someone has to house these people. The British will never tolerate a rise in taxes to fund social building projects - not ever, let alone the NIMBY lot who don't want affordable housing near them (true in my village - you would think they were building a prison the way they talk about it). Private LLs might be an uncomfy truth for some but the do house a huge amount of people (not always on benefits of course) and they need to be operating in a free market if they operate at all. The assumption here is that all Private LLs are subsudused by HB which of course is not the case. Nearly all the private LLs I know will not touch people on benefits so that is no subsidised is it.

Agreed again it was (and is again) a mistake to sell of social housing but here we are again with Shiny Dave doing the same and in fact increasing the discounts. They are making promises that this money will be reinvested in social housing but let's be honest the average Tory voter idiots does not give a flying fuck about social housing for people on low incomes.

brandysoakedbitch I don't think anyone is blaming individual owners and LLs for taking advantage of the economic situation given to them. I think most of us had we been put in the same position would have done the same.
However it was a mistake to allow social housing to be sold off at rock bottom prices and then not replaced. High private rents are the problem and it's not right for the government to keep subsidising them so private LLs stay in profit. Private rents need to reflect what the market can support without government subsidy.

yes but alos if someone gave you the opportunity to buy a flat at a big discount as many council tenants were able to do then surely you would take it and get a leg up on the property ladder. I know it doesn't sit well but loads of people have taken these opportunities and this is just a consequence of the properties being passed on. Look I don't agree with London prices, it is utter bloody madness but it is not an unrealistic rent for a 3 bed is all.

Blame Maggie Thatcher, she started all this madness

Brandysoakedbitch but £360 a week for an ex council flat which was built to house families in need is extortionate and I bet my bottom dollar that the socila housing families living in the same block are'nt being charged anywhere near that amount. My point is that everytime council housing (ie subsidised housing) is sold and then let by a private landlord, it's housing lost to people in need.

And what I did consciously choose to do is to only rent to people on benefits because I had been in this situation myself in the past ie. on benefits and not able to get anywhere to rent. I also did not take a deposit from the last family that moved into my bigger house (daft I know) because they just didn't have it and no one else would house them so I might not be a philanthropist but I am a nice person and try to help others. And FWIW it is not easier to get rent paid just because your tenant is in receipt of benefit, they have to be two months behind to have it paid direct.

Not pretending to be philanthropic but I am being fair. I did it because of a sn child and could not work effectively as a single mummy (at the time) - works for us as a family. I do however make a decision not to rip people off in the process - there is enough room with sensible planning to make a profit and not screw people into the ground so they can pay their rents.

I cannot understand why it is wrong to make a profit, it is a job I do. I develop properties also and I pay tax and contribute so am not a burden on the system, in the long term these investments will ensure that one child of mine in particular will not be dependant on handouts either.

I do think given the opportunity that I have ie. to have a small portfolio and give myself a small income most people would give it a go. I did put up the deposit and no one gave anything to me, it is all my own hard work and now (finally) it turns a profit.

Sustained housing development is the only way as there are actually not enough houses to go around. The thing is it is actually very difficult to build in most areas as no one wants housing developments near them hence the Tories relaxing the planning rules.

"They are PROFITTING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Which is immoral IMO."
that's just capitalism which is why cameron re-indroduced right to buy recently

btl landlords can charge what they like becuase of supply and demand

the proplem is lack of housing

not rent structuring

if there was more rentable housing abailable on the market - market forces would foce the price down.

this is about development

housing will only be available for 'everyone' if there is sustainable housing development which includes rentable housing.

hunty cat only used capitals as a virtual 'bolding'. of the word -

you are renting to make a profit - a by product of this is that you are housing people - but that isn't the reason - so don't come across all philanthropic

the portfolois of the btl landlord do not matter - as the solution is to create more housing - and let the market to the rest .