AIBU to think not enough people are aware of the proposed changes to social housing?

[StripeySherbert]

The housing and planning bill is going to the 3rd stage in the House of Lords but I don't see much about it, it is going to affect so many people!

Pay to stay will be introduced, households with a 40k income for London or 30k elsewhere will pay local market rate rent, this extra rent goes to the government, not the councils. People who start paying private rented levels of rent will maybe expect more for their money? There will be no extra money in the pot, it's going to Central Government.

The new national living wage being introduced, the sums show that most households with 2 working full time will hit the 30k.

New tenancies will have a fixed term of 2 to 5 years. Meaning social housing will only be for those who have no other way to find housing themselves, whilst they get on their feet, most would think this should be the case, I use to think that should be the case myself, but that's not how communities form, being friendly with the neighbours, instead this could promote "sink estates?"

Councils will be forced to sell high value council properties that become empty or face a levy charge if they don't. Again, this money does not go to the council, it goes to Central Government.

This is only it in part, yet it seems to be flying under the radar!

Some of the changes wouldn't be so bad if the money went back into the local area/ local housing.

AyeAmorak there are always -people on these threads who cannot understand that a below-market rate is a subsidy. It's very mysterious.

Do you consider that Lidl customers are subsidised?

You could also argue that council tenants are paying for the privilege of being custodians of national assets. Property increases in value. Tenants live in the property and pay rent for that privilege. They maintain the property by paying for heating and keep it ventilated. Quite often they improve the house and garden and prevent it falling into disrepair. All the time paying a rent that is set to pay for other maintenance issues and to pay for the property.

If the property was stood empty for many years it would fall into a state of disrepair. And all the time (especially in London) the value of the property is increasing.

Yes the council could get higher rents from a non council tenant. Yes they could sell it. But these houses were built for council tenants. I am pretty sure there are plenty of public buildings subsidised by tax payers that could generate a higher income some way. Schools, colleges, public swimming pools, libraries etc. Yet when of those is threatened with closure the public protests and are angry.

They might not be able to walk into the living room of a council house and use that facility but one day a family member might need to. But if they aren't there because they were sold where will they go?

The tories have no interest in social or council housing. They don't want it and would gwt rid of it in a heart beat if allowed. Our housing stock is a national asset as much as our parks and art.

It is unfair that not everyone has access to it. But selling what we do have isn't the answer. I don't have access easily to some of our national assetts like The Natural History museum. It would be too expensive to travel down. It doesn't mean it should be sold or I begrudge anyone else having access to it. Or that I think people should pay more to use it.

If ppl have got to move every year or two it will fall into disrepair because ppl will save what little they have on not decorating so they can put the money towards the next move.

Do you consider that Lidl customers are subsidised?

anyone can access Lidl offers. That's a business decision, taken in the name of profit. Any time anyone buys something from Lidl they by definition pay market price. In contrast, only a select group of people can access sub market rents.

What if councils charged market rent for social housing, but the difference between social rent and market rent was made up for by something called "the social housing benefit". Does that make it clearer that it's a subsidy?

by people's reasoning here, if councils simply gave their houses away to tenants for free, that wouldn't be a subsidy. After all, they are paid off, right? Doesn't cost the state a thing to give away the houses.

You could also argue that council tenants are paying for the privilege of being custodians of national assets.

who says keep it empty? letting properties at market rent keeps the places occupied. this is certainly not an argument for these subsidies.

If ppl have got to move every year or two it will fall into disrepair because ppl will save what little they have on not decorating so they can put the money towards the next move.

social housing doesn't solve this problem for the huge number of people in private rentals who can't access social housing. That's why I said above instead of screaming for more social housing, we should be advocating for better security for private rentals (like europe, canada and even parts of the US). Then, we don't just leave a huge percentage of the rental market out in the cold.

Why can't we help those in desperate need more? Before they get to that position. And why make 'being in desperate need' be rewarded if you like with a more secure tenancy and then say 'don't do too well will you, you will have to move on if you do'

AGREED

I would never have given up my council tenancy if I wasn't lucky enough to have bought a house where my mortgage is slightly less a month than my council rent (due to a slight windfall). if it was more, I would have stayed put. and I certainly would not have moved to a private rental.

Do you consider that Lidl customers are subsidised?

No, I think they have loss leaders that allows them to bring in customers who will buy other higher-margin stuff. This is a normal, free-market practice.

"Does that make it clearer that it's a subsidy?"

Nope. Still just sounding like sour grapes.

I consider myself a strong labour supporter and would happily pay more taxes to increase benefits for those that need them, improve the NHS etc but I'm not sure how I feel about this very Tory policy. I want to despise it but part of me wonders if it has an element of fairness based on the current lack of houses.

In an ideal world, my view is that we should have more social housing and that everyone who needs a house should have one. The reality is that we aren't in this position.

I grew up in a council house and I would have hated to have been forced out of the place that I called home - so really, I feel that people shouldn't be made to leave their homes.

I also feel that Tories/ supporters don't know how it feels to have to rely on others and they (generally) have inheritance/ access to funds and therefore, how dare they erode aspects of the safety net created to protect us all.

However, the houses we have are so few they can only act as a safety net that people should access whilst in hard times and then once on their feet move on.

I'm really torn on this policy and the very fact I'm feeling torn, is making me feel very upset. I want to be angry with the Tories, but I'm struggling to get my head around it.

"Does that make it clearer that it's a subsidy?"

Nope. Still just sounding like sour grapes.

Speaking bluntly, the fact that you think Lidl's 'below market' loss leaders are a parallel for below-market social housing reveals basic financial illiteracy.

I think the poster who said the aim is to treat ppl like chess pieces on a chess board used a good analogy.

Finallyonboard what about the disruption to childrens education if ppl are forced to move every couple of years ...cost of a new uniform etc. If their education is affected then their earning potential later on could be too so they will need social housing themselves when they get older. If you are going to push and bully ppl into a private rental then the law should step up to make them more secure.

And some ppl dont want a mortgage. What the fuck gives others the right to tell ppl what to do with their own money

And ppl may get promoted at work but is that for life? There is no job for life these days....there isnt the job security that there was.

Carry on all you like matey.

I can read a dictionary, and at no point has the definition of subsidy changed to "making less profit than one might otherwise make if one chose to pursue different business aims"

I can call my cat a dog if it suits my purposes, but I can't expect the vet not to laugh at me.

Helena - I don't disagree with you at all.

I did very well academically and without my DM claiming benefits and us living in a council house, it's likely I wouldn't be where I am now. Incidentally, I now own my own home outright and have a thriving career. My sibling has a mortgage and has a great career, so state intervention and support in my family has resulted in us contributing to the system and not needing anything out. I remain happy to pay in and also, would happily pay more than in to help those in need.

I still struggle with this policy though in the context of the current availability and the provision of a safety net for those in immediate need.

wont people being forced out of london due to rents so high push up rents to once affordable rents outside london and city's in general

how does that help the poor,they wont be able to rent anywhere if that carrys on

Does this apply in Scotland as well? They have abolished Right to Buy there.

I don't understand the subsidy argument and semantics. It's not a subsidy. (By the definition) the property was built with subsidy, but it is not ongoing.
Unless you are claiming HB, of course.

I also don't understand the argument about council houses being paid for many times over through rent. No one can know this. You don't know how much it costs to manage, maintain and service your/ any council property so how would you know whether it's even making a return on investment? It's crazy to suggest this is even calculated, let alone that you know the outcome of the calculation!

I can read a dictionary, and at no point has the definition of subsidy changed to "making less profit than one might otherwise make if one chose to pursue different business aims"

if you have indeed read the dictionary definition, you will see that it is incredibly broad, and certainly would not limit government subsidies to only cases where it costs the government something.

By the same reasoning, if the government owned a building, letting it to tescos for less than what sainsbury's was willing to pay wouldn't be a subsidy. What, precisely, would be the difference between this case and social housing? Any difference shouldn't reference the different aims in the two cases (not stated in the first, social policy and housing in the second).

I don't understand the subsidy argument and semantics. It's not a subsidy. (By the definition) the property was built with subsidy, but it is not ongoing. Unless you are claiming HB, of course.

it wasn't built with a subsidy, it was built with state money and is therefore state owned. it becomes a subsidy when the government gives a group or individual preferential access to it. that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad (many things are subsidized with economic or social aims), but it's still subsidy.

wont people being forced out of london due to rents so high push up rents to once affordable rents outside london and city's in general

but social housing doesn't stop that. It just stops it for the lucky people shielded from market rents. Everyone else is subject to the market.

That's not true, HA properties weren't built with public money.

That's not what a subsidy is. It really doesn't matter (what different does it make whether it's subsidised or not? To your argument?) but a subsidy isn't something that one group are given preferential access too.

All these people complaining about what happens to "the poor" on 30/40 thousand if they don't have a secure housing tenancy. I guess you could ask the majority or people earning that which are in private rented.

In most areas earning 30/40 will not at all get you a housing association house. (Apart from adapted houses I guess.)

Another myth , I don't know a single HA that doesn't let households earning over 30k rent a home.

Some things that are subsidised by the taxpayer are unfair. Look at schools. If you live in an area where you get outstanding schools you can access your dcs get a better education than another DC who lives in an area where the only place available is in a failing school. Same with the postcode lottery of NHS care.

It doesn't mean that the dc's in a school doing better should be made to leave halfway through the year and let a child in greater need have the place. Or that halfway through fertility treatment a couple should pack up and let someone else have a go. It's not fair if everyone doesn't get the same but unfortunately that's how it is sometimes.

There aren't enough properties for everyone. Making pay to stay won't change that. It just creates another division between the haves and have not. It sticks another catogery in. The don't have quite enough. Or the had a bit too much.

Meanwhile the btls will make even more money and have even more demand.

Here, in Dorset, its 60k and under to qualify if you have other need factors, such as over crowding or health or any other reason.

We've looked a few times before but although anyone can go on the register you would never come up if you don't have the things which qualify you to be "in need" and our income went against that. (Which I think is as it should be!)

So many people (as this thread demonstrates) are in need at point of housing, but years and years and years later are earning well and really don't need the entitlement that others in their position wouldn't get.

But the whole thing baffles me I must admit.

Ideologically I wish it was as it was intended (I think) that there was enough to be available to anyone who wanted them!