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?

That's a very gmomic remark needs

Angel tenants that have an income as high as Bob Crow's are really a minority in the social sector. In his case, I think he was just rigidly sticking to his roots.

I don't think anything will be resolved by making the debate personal. Or discussing individuals. The way in which some people think they can patronise other people purely on the basis of housing tenure is something I hadn't fully appreciated until last night. Really unpleasant. Better to discuss generalities.

angel if you were implementing a system to repeat means tests of tenants every few years, where would you put the income cut off?

I did not mean it to be fideline, to me it's a shame that now when ever I read posts I'm going to be thinking in my head that a poster is quite unpleasant in a hidden way.

I'm beginning to think that some people think subsidising = not getting as much profit as humanly possible. It doesn't

Yes it does. It means exactly that. (Assuming as much profit as possible = market rent.)

Suppose market rent would be 400.

1. If council rents at 400 to someone who does not get housing benefit, there is no subsidy.
2. If council rents at 400 to someone who gets 400 housing benefit, the renter has a 400 subsidy from public funds.
3. If (hypothetically) case 2 transforms into one where rent is 0 and housing benefit is 0, i.e. council give 400 off rent instead of 400 in cash, then even though economically nothing has changed (both council and tenants bank balances are exactly the same as in case 2) you would say there is now suddenly no subsidy. That is ridiculous.

People who think no cashflow = no subsidy are hard-of-thinking.

The point is fraidy that council housing is self-financing (and not-for-profit.

And in your example HB IS a subsidy. HB is always a subsidy.

But the comparatively affordable rent levels of council flats/houses are not due to subsidy.

A discount in lieu of HB would also, effectively, be a subsidy, but that is a quite different (entirely hypothetical) thing from what we are discussing.

Well then fraidycat we agree - council tenants who pay their own rent aren't subsidised

Of course renting at below market rate is a subsidy - there's an opportunity cost in not choosing to set rent at market rates.

Fideline - I don't know - it'd be a mixed asset/ibcome test im guessing. But certainly not at a place that entitles 99% of taxpayers!

If you want to chuck people out of previously secure tenancies (otherwise known as homes) into the ruinously expensive instability of the private rental market, then at the very least you need to completely reform the private rental system first. Costs a limb to rent a cupboard in London.

then at the very least you need to completely reform the private rental system first

Would be nice if someone was arsed about doing it for us lot who are already in it.

Of course nursey

Have you seen the thread?

I really thing the time is ripe for a campaign to reform the private rental sector

My point was just that, even if one agrees that council tenancies should be temp and means-tested (which I don't), doing that BEFORE addressing the private rental chaos is a bit derriere-about-visage

In my district or whatever it's called council houses are made and let to only working families that pay a deposit etc,
Basically just like private renting process.
Of course there are still the priority process but there's also the one above so people to have albeit a limited opportunity to social housing.

Council houses are state owned. And in that case should be for the most needy. Not a house that is given out for life regardless of change of circumstances. A lot of people do struggle with the ruinously expensive private sector. Are they never to have a chance of a house because some people are sitting very comfortably in a property owned by the state when they can well afford to buy their own house. Totally wrong.

Would that be just so people who are inclined can look down their noses at all the lazy unfortunates and know its guaranteed to be a real poor person?

That's interesting Wisnea. Are you in the south?

Ok Viv what is your idea of where the income cut off should be?

That wouldn't be up to me to decide. Many things are means tested.

But few that are quite so visible

is weird.. all the people who think council houses are subsidised want those who are not and pay full rent replaced with those who are and have to use HB.

I wonder what that means.

Well it matters. People keep proposing this, but no-one seems willing to define their terms.

A scheme where tenants are asked to move on once their h/hold income reaches £100k pa, is quite a different thing t a scheme with a cut-off of £30k pa. Would you take into account family size.

A family of four earning £30k, tipped into London private rental market, for e.g., are basically being forced into claiming HB. So a scheme like that, would be forcibly making self-sufficient families benefit-dependent. That would be a terrible policy.

You could argue that giving a couple with a joint income of £100k a nudge towards house ownership wouldn't be so draconian, but there are very very few social tenants like that.

Sock is right. There is a lot of snobbery at play here.

My daughter makes no profit on her one bed flat she lets out (has an interest only mortgage). Not all landlords are raking it in. Many hardly cover their costs. It is social housing rents which are artificial and do not reflect costs and the market.

Costs are exactly what council rents DO reflect, Laura

Presumably your daughter had a free choice of how/where to invest her money. I'm not really sure what your point is.

Laura going by the arguments on here your daughter is letting the side down by only charging enough to cover her costs. The council are probably making more profit than she is. By not charging more she is subsidising it (according to the Ministry of Silly Definitions anyway).