To ask a really stupid question about council houses

[cleofatra]

To be honest, this is the best way to ask so I don't embarrass myself too much.

Do people actually pay any "rent" for council houses? (Or does it come out of some kind of payment?) I have no idea.

Sorry, I honestly am asking to find out as I don't know.

Its better for society because people need affordable, good quality housing and it costs less as housing benefit isn't being paid to private landlords
This ^^
It's one reason why I don't get all the whining about the benefits bill when the benefits bill could probably be dramatically cut if councils built council houses and used the rent to maintain them instead of letting landlords profit from housing benefit.

But then people can't make shit loads of money if you have good council housing, so that's probably the answer

Well actually, since you seem so concerned about it, our porters clear the bins and tip them. But I would say that binmen are an essential service, so should absolutely qualify for subsidised housing. The state of the roads when they go on strike demonstrates that!

And yes, I am "alright". Because I work obscenely long hours and frequently skip holidays; only took 3 months' mat leave etc etc. That's my choice. Others choose not to do the same, and that's fine.

But there comes a point when your decisions impact on where you live etc etc. The question is, where should that point be? I just don't think society owes a duty to everyone to meet their needs - i think people owe it to society to help themselves too.

My own cousin is a great example of this. Given free education that she pissed up the wall; given free healthcare that she abused by taking up smoking at 13 and putting on 5 stone before she turned 20 - now at 23 she lives in a caravan in her boyfriend's parents' garden whilst the pair of them smoke and play computer games until 3am and wait for the council to find them a house. She can't work because she has no qualifications and she claims to have "anxiety" and he can't work because - well he has no reason! Why should the tax payers provide them with a house for which they will then claim housing benefit? They are very very different to a bin man who gets up at the crack of dawn and does an unpleasant and physically demanding job.

Perfectlyfaor question I assumed they were free as well until a few years ago.

Rebecca better yr cousin has a small council studio and hb of say 200 a month than 600 going to a private landlord pocket...

Better yet - She can stay in the caravan as far as I am concerned, and let someone who works but doesn't earn much, or someone who can't work because they are disabled or have dependants have it! Then when she gets off her arse and gets a job, she will be eligible to join the queue.

Why does it matter? Our benefits system has been exploited by migrants. I worked almost 30 years with a good wage and paid shit loads in tax. Made redundant and have struggled since. Money I paid into this country should come back to me.

This article from 2015 provides a breakdown of who is exactly occupying social housing compared to the private sector. Only 8% are unemployed but a very high %

Sorry. A high % are retired.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/nov/18/who-lives-41-million-social-housing-homes-england-wales

Yes because they moved into them 40, 50, 60 years ago when they were built. Lots of the really good ones were bought under right to buy. The ones left people stay in and do not move because they don't want to give up their tenancy.
My mum actually would prefer to move into some rented flats near her for elderly people - costs about the same as rent to the council. But there is no security of tenancy, so she is too scared to. Anyone who has a secure tenancy would be foolish to move, as they are so hard to find.

just under 93% of working age benefit claimants are British flutterbyeee 5% of total expenditure on working age benefits are paid out to EEA led claims. Non UK nationals are less likely to be claiming out of work benefits (source - House of Commons Library Briefing paper March 2017)

Housing benefit has never paid mortgage interest, after a 9 month wait, a separate Smi payment can be claimed but this is now abolished april 18 and is now a loan for homeowners. Lots of people saying housing benefit can pay mortgage interest are wrong.

Flytrbyee is showing both ignorance and racism.

Please use google and educate yourself.

Why does it matter? Our benefits system has been exploited by migrants

The UK has some of the strictest residency requirements in Europe. Furthermore, EU law allows us to deport migrants from the EEA and Switzerland if they have become a burden on the welfare system, and obviously we set our own immigration policies for non-EEA/Swiss citizens as we haven't signed the Schengen Agreement.

Curry it is not as equally valid. It is utterly incorrect to say it is subsided. This means a cash gift or grant. It is neither. It is true councils could charge more but no one pays the extra to the council for the reduction so it is NOT a subsidy!

I also dislike the term ‘discounted’ as well. If you choose to buy your apples in Tesco for £1 instead of Waitrose for £2 I wouldn’t consider you had bought discounted apples. The councils/HAs are non-profit and that’s what they’re doing. Exactly what they’re set up for.

But I would say that binmen are an essential service, so should absolutely qualify for subsidised housing.

No, no, no! The argument that we need to subsidise housing for low-income workers in expensive areas is wrong. The economically correct solution is that we need to pay higher salaries, or get by without their labour, or some mixture of those two.

The overall taxpayer subsidy might be the same either way, but the benefit of taking the higher salary route is that we are not lying to ourselves about the value of either housing or (in this case) getting bins removed, and can make more rational economic decisions as a consequence. (Higher salaries for bin men might mean the people whose bins need removing need to earn more to justify living where they do, so the issue spreads recursively through the economy and all goods and services end up being priced that much more accurately.)

A market-economy is (among other things) a powerful computer that regulates supply of and demand for goods and services, whenever we create a subsidy we are corrupting the data that computer uses and doing insidious damage to the economy.

Most foreigners think that council houses are free (...) And for them they usually are

I'm foreigner, pay the highest bracket of tax and employ a lot of British people.

The vast majority of emigrants I know are hard working, well educated people.

Your comment is as little as you.

Curry it is not as equally valid. It is utterly incorrect to say it is subsided

You might want to read before arguing. I said discounted, not subsidised. Take it up with whatever poster before me said subsidised.
I said discounted from the market rate.

Firesuit The market can not provide everything which is why we have a welfare state and government services.

Curry it was my post you quoted when making that statement so maybe you should read properly:

Walker that isn’t subsidised. Your sister’s rent was charged at cost. Your private landlord charged you more (it still might have been at cost, depending on what their mortgage,running costs etc. were)

That is one way to look at it. Another, entirely valid way, is to say that the private rent is the market rent and the true cost, and the council rent is very heavily discounted by the local authority.

First paragraph mine, second paragraph yours. That’s why I replied to you.

Actually paula - before you go off on one. If someone has their rent paid in full by Housing Benefit - how is that NOT free housing??? Often they also get Council Tax Benefit - and therefore don't pay for that either. If they are also not earning an income then surely they are in fact getting their house for free.

I am not debating the ins and outs of it. What I am saying is that the OP was not being unreasonable in her lack of clarity and it is a perfectly valid question and not so far from the truth if you look at it so jumping on her is unfair

Curry it was my post you quoted when making that statement so maybe you should read properly

Of course it was, I was answering you. Are you always this confused?

A subsidy doesn’t have to take the form of a cash transaction.

Imagine I owned a second house outright and had been privately letting it and was obtaining an income from it. If the tenant left and instead I allowed my sister to live there and pay no rent, I would be subsiding her housing costs despite there being no cash changing hands. I would be providing the use of an asset at less than I could get from the market and therefore forgoing some of the return on that asset.

Switch these circumstances to a public body owning property and the second tenant paying lower rent than the first then you can see it is a subsidy.

I’m not confused at all. Are you always this rude?

Housing benefit has never paid mortgage interest, after a 9 month wait, a separate Smi payment can be claimed but this is now abolished april 18 and is now a loan for homeowners. Lots of people saying housing benefit can pay mortgage interest are wrong.

@flirtygirl, I didn't know this and was one of those who wrongly thought housing benefit paid mortgage interest. Thanks for sharing.