To think there's a worrying number of people who are under the impression that Local Authority housing is free?

[MrsWinnibago]

I've read things on MN a few times which make me realise that some people seem to be under the impression that if you live in a council house or a housing association house then you don't pay for it.

They seem to think that people in these properties get full housing benefit as some kind of default!

Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong. It's a minority of people who think this yes?

How can it be subsidised if no grant/aid/additional funds are being used to cover the cost? Two identical houses, one in London and one in Peterborough for example. One costs £500pw and the other £150pw. Is the cheaper one subsidised? No, it just costs less.

Written exactly how is the taxpayer paying the difference?

You're not using the right word.

Councils own their stock outright. It doesn't cost my council any more to own my flat than it costs you to own an odd sock that's been down the back of your washing-machine for two years- and any maintenance and admin costs will be covered many times over by the rent we pay. There is no "difference in price" to be made up by the taxpayer. The fact that private rentals cost more due to a different business model is entirely irrelevant to whether council houses are subsidised.

Also, round here councils would not get anything like market rate for their properties. Ours do the absolute bare minimum in improvements- and that's if you're lucky. Not to mention that all decor/flooring/carpeting is down to the tenant.

Written exactly how is the taxpayer paying the difference?

as I explained.

if the government could rent it at 1000 per month (market rent) but rents it as social housing for 800, what just happened to that 200? That's tax payer money that wasn't recuperated.

My previous HA place was a tiny 2 bed prefab built in the 1940s and the rent was £115pw. I'm pretty sure that over the years the rent more than covered the construction and repair costs. I've actually lived in 3 1940s prefabs and if anything, the rents paid to HAs and Councils for the older properties subsidize the building of new ones (in theory).

But the taxpayer doesn't own it. The government does.

If HA is subsidised it's because the HA is "a registered charity".

That's not saying anything for them wanting us to now be 4 weeks IN FRONT with our rent "for when Universal Credit comes in to effect" so that they have £400 from each of their hundreds of tenants just sitting in their bank accounts....

For the Last. Fucking. Time.

Non-profit. Does. Not. Mean. Subsidised.

Councils own their stock outright.

irrelevant. Should a private LL who owns their place outright give a discount too?

It doesn't cost my council any more to own my flat than it costs you to own an odd sock that's been down the back of your washing-machine for two years

come now. let's not be silly.

and any maintenance and admin costs will be covered many times over by the rent we pay.

true in private accommodation as well.

The government has a number of assets. one of them is housing and land. If it sells any of those assets at a discount (by that I mean they sell it to Person A for less than they could sell it to Person B) than that sale is being subsidised by all of us.

In addition the revenue from rents has until recently been ringfenced and put back into housing and since 2008 has been making a profit which goes back to the treasury. If revenue over and above the cost is being generated, then it can't be called a subsidy.

Erm why wouldn't a private landlord who owns outright not give a reduction? It's all profit then isn't it bar repairs?

Weird way of thinking when there's something wrong in the private rental market the further south you go

And why aren't you taking any notice of the areas where private and social housing there isn't really that great a difference in rent?

*For the Last. Fucking. Time.

Non-profit. Does. Not. Mean. Subsidised.*

yelling something doesn't make it so. I am not claiming that non-profit is the same as subsidised. It obviously isn't.

go read the first paragraph of entry "subsidy" on wikipedia. it covers this and other similar subsidies. The principle, however, is always the same. if the government isn't getting fair value for it's assets, then it's subsidising the sale.

Could you call capital gains tax relief a subsidy too? That's lost revenue as well. Who pays for it? Round and round we go.

Erm why wouldn't a private landlord who owns outright not give a reduction? It's all profit then isn't it bar repairs?

do you know of one? Please give me their number.

And why aren't you taking any notice of the areas where private and social housing there isn't really that great a difference in rent?

if the rents are the same, then it's not subsidised.

In addition the revenue from rents has until recently been ringfenced and put back into housing and since 2008 has been making a profit which goes back to the treasury. If revenue over and above the cost is being generated, then it can't be called a subsidy.

it doesn't matter if they are running at a surplus. We, the tax payer, aren't getting fair value for the asset.

Er written if the LL charges £1000 instead of £800 none of that is the taxpayers money (only a % of profit) it's all the LLs money.

Written, council housing is often far from the same standard as older, privately owned stock. I've been in many flats and houses that are simply cheaply built, flimsy, utilitarian blocks and absolutely not 'worth' the same as renting a flat in a solid, Victorian semi with period features. So that argument is bollocks. Also, just because the private rental market in inflated, doesn't mean social housing should be. And if social housing was charged at market rents the economic and social impact would be disastrous. thickos some people can't understand that if you reduce people's disposable income drastically their ability to pay into the economy suffers.

Could you call capital gains tax relief a subsidy too? That's lost revenue as well. Who pays for it? Round and round we go.

Bingo! yes, I would. if you have targeted tax relief only available in certain circumstances to certain people, it's a kind of subsidy.

it's the same as charging full capital gains and then giving them a direct subsidy as a rebate.

It's the same with Forces Housing. We are always getting accused of free housing.

We pay just under and I'm meaning a couple of pounds under market price for our quarter that we have no choice of.

And often they are substandard.

The quarter before this had a kitchen put in in the 50's

Written am I as a working council tenant included in your "we the tax payer"? Since I am a tax payer?

You're the one that said it you tell me

We're a working family as well OP.. 2 taxpayers in one household.. its enough to blow brains right out of heads it is

So that argument is bollocks.

different properties are worth different amounts of money. I am not saying a 2 bed council house is worth the same as a 2 bed victorian. I am saying that if you rent/sell it to Person A for less than Person B is willing to pay, it's subsidised.

Also, just because the private rental market in inflated, doesn't mean social housing should be. And if social housing was charged at market rents the economic and social impact would be disastrous.

I said clearly above (you may have missed it) that i am not using this as an argument for or against council housing. I agree with you on this point. All I am saying is that it's a subsidy.

I grew up in council flats. It WAS free for us, and for lots of people I knew. I presume for some it still is? (no idea) For most it is significantly cheaper than owning or private renting.

I dont see what your problem is, to be honest. That some people dont know some things? How dare they?

So WHY don't they call it a subsidy then written?

With regard to taxpayers getting value for money, the revenue generated by social housing is around 4 times the amount the taxpayer contributes to it.

I'd call that value for money.

Written am I as a working council tenant included in your "we the tax payer"? Since I am a tax payer?

why wouldn't you be? of course you are, even if your tax rate is 0 (if your income is low enough).