to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

[fideline]

....housing?

1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

Oh Ok. Thought you suspected me of sudden switch

The unfairness comes because certain people have entitlement to council houses for life . Imagine if there was a supermarket owned by the state but only certain people could shop there because there wouldn't be enough supplies to go round. This council house for life business must end IMHO.

Sorry I've not read the whole thread but in addition to HA/council housing tenants being essentially protected from market rates and forces I think one of the bugbears people have is that tenants don't have to adhere to the same 'pressures of payment' as per private accommodation -- I read somewhere that in one London borough almost 50% of tenants were in arrears with their rent!! Those in private accommodation or with mortgages just don't have that kind of bonkers flexibility or luxury. That combined with the lower rate of rent - although I know comparative rent varies - makes those in private feel that those in Council/HA housing are being mollycoddled and infantalized a bit...

In principle I just dislike the notion that someone in local govt has a list that defines/prioritizes who deserves 'support' via social housing and who doesn't... and just the idea that someone in govt defines degrees of 'deserving' is depressing (although appreciate it's necessary. Think I just fundamentally think most local govt is shit and run by buffoons).

Vivienne, you are right that it is unfair. And that council houses are subsidised.

BUT, as I think as already been observed, rather than say 'it's not fair that she pays a fair price for housing when I have to pay through the nose, she should pay more', why don't you say 'she pays a fair price for housing, what can we do to cut the cost for everyone?'

Housing doesn't need to be as expensive as it is. The solution is not to bring everyone down. It really isn't.

Unfortunately, councils do not have enough money to cover the important basic needs of their communities - such as running old people's homes, children's centres, youth clubs, centres for the disabled, libraries, mend pot-holes, and so on and so on.
In that context, why do those of you in social housing think it right and proper that you should pay far less in rental than 1) you can personally afford, and 2) others in your communities are paying? Pie in the sky talk about everyone should pay less in rent and social housing is the starting point is rubbish - councils can't afford to rent at low rates to those who can afford to pay market or near market rates. I'm not saying that the number of council houses should be reduced, but they should be used for the poor, and the poor who become better off while living in them should pay more, because they no longer need that subsidy (which does ultimately come from local tax payers). Alternatively, you can move out and cope with the private rental market like the rest of us, where you will have far less security of tenure and tolerance of bad behaviour, as well as paying market rates.
I suppose you miss the days when you would have been allowed to pass on your council houses to your wealthy children?

If I have a house to rent out, and rent it to someone I like at £200 below market rent, I'm told by many in this thread that is not a subsidy. But if I charge him the full market rent, and also set up a standing order for £200, the standing order is a subsidy.

The two scenarios are identical in economic terms for both parties, but we're only allowed to use the word economic term "subsidy" for one of them?

I, and anyone else with a basic grasp of logic, will continue to use the word subsidy for both.

Vivienne,

Can I ask (given that you refer to it up thread) when approximately is it that you think the housing benefit cap came into force?

Williamima

How many people with mortgages or private renting tenants do you know whose payments are due weekly?

Lots of social housing tenants show up as in arrears yet when you look at the accounts that run week by week it could be a matter of days or with a tenant who pays monthly just a few weeks. It messes with the figures quite a bit

Dino you are just telling lies. Making things up, being dishonest.

Not to mention refusing to listen to people who are better informed than you.

"that subsidy (which does ultimately come from local tax payers)"

This ^^ for example is untrue/ fabricated/ not remotely the case.

Fraidy the analogy you are using is not a good one.

The people who have differing understandings of 'subsidy' are one thing.

The posters who just persist in contributing fiction and won't engage in discussion are just ignoramuses (ignoramii?)

Bottom line, fideline, is councils do not have enough money to pay for the vital things they are responsible for. They could get more money towards these vital things if well off council tenants paid market or near market rates for their housing. Personally, I would rather help from the council went to elderly people unable to look after themselves due to dementia, to the disabled and housebound, etc, than to people who used to be poor and so qualified for a council house, but are now well off. If legislation / mechanisms need to be changed to charge these people more money and use that money on those who need help, that can no doubt be done.

Dino a PP poster has already told you- money collected from council rents cannot be spent on those other services- it has to stay within the housing dept BY LAW.

No amount of rent hiking will fill a single pothole or provide even one hour of social care. Cannot be done. Not possible. Against the law.

Geddit?

On the off chance that you are just not getting it rather than plain goady;

Council housing finance is like a sealed central heating system- a closed loop. No subsidy enters the loop. No rents collected can leave the loop.

Council housing finances itself. It is not subsidised by cash from elsewhere, it cannot subsidise other services.

As I said in my last post - CHANGE THE LAW THEN - THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.
Getting a bit fed up with what let's face it are people who can afford to pay real life rent scrounging off the council (and therefore local tax payers) and being all self righteous about it. Not exactly admirable, so if you're going to do it, maybe you should at least keep it quiet?

Justify the assertion that being a council tenant is a form of scrounging.

Why have you gone all frothy-mouthed-beetroot-face about the council tenants Dino? Why does that make more sense to you than being chiefly angered by extortionate private rents?

"British English: scrounge If you say that someone scrounges something such as food or money, you disapprove of them because they get it by asking for it, rather than by buying it or earning it."

You can pay real rent out of your increased earnings, but continue asking for cheap rent that you don't need. And yes, I disapprove of that, particularly if you live in an area where people in genuine need are on the waiting list for council housing.

I'm not a council tenant Dino

How does that definition of scrounge fit the facts then?

I would think that definition proves my point, not yours.

Oh I see- only making personal attacks when you mistook me for an honest rent-paying tenant?

Nice.

That vile rudeness about council tenants really was because you assumed I was one, wasn't it?

Can't quite believe that.

I can see why people feel stigmatized.

What a vile human being you are.

Poor there was a time when about 30% of the population lived in council housing and only the very poorest rented privately.

The article I posted last night claimed that council houses are subsidised by £122 million a year of public money.

Yet fideline says they don't- in which case where did the journalist get the figure from, and why have they been allowed to print a blatant untruth? (I know newspaper journalists like to stretch the truth to fit a story, but that is different to printing a checkable fact like this)

Or is it possible that fideline has it wrong?

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

I'm on my phone so that link might not be clickable but it's an interesting article

Oooh it's heating up

Funny how people will pick and choose what's printed in a newspaper.. which are used for propaganda by the government.... yanno our puppet masters

There are plenty links on this thread to dispute this subsidy thing but people really don't want to believe it. It's quite odd.

Council houses are not subsidised.