To think these changes to the housing waiting list are not “cruel” but simply realistic?

[Eastie77Returns]

Our council has announced changes to the local housing waiting list from next month. There are tens of thousands on the list who will never be housed as they are not deemed to be in urgent need so they will now be removed.

The council has said they will be offered “personalised support to explore their options” which probably means advising they leave London, advances to help with private rent etc. I understand in many cases that is really not helpful but a close relative of mine who works in housing has been on the phone to me in tears because of the level of abuse she has faced from frustrated residents who have been on the list for years and are being removed.

Now a parent from DD’s school is organising a march on the town hall to protest all of this and has asked parents for support. She has been offered a council house 100+ miles outside London and is refusing to leave as her support network is here and I fully understand that. However, I do think a dose of realism is needed. There are 15,000 people on the waiting list here and a few hundred council properties become available each year. This parent has been told she does not fall into the 3 bands that will be kept on the list so she will never get a council house and she has responded by accusing the council of unimaginable cruelty

I don’t understand where she expects the council to magically just find thousands of homes and change that situation?

Hmmmm yeah I can’t afford to live anywhere near where my support network would be ! I had to move away from my family to get an affordable place to rent privately ! That’s real life tbh 🤷‍♀️

Social housing tenants pay rent.

There's the massive societal and moral benefts of social housing - secure affordable housing.

But, if you must reduce it solely to financial. It costs the taxpayer hugely to fund the consequences of the public health housing and homelessness emergency. Much much more than the cost of buying and building social housing.

@Tealightsandd

Social housing tenants pay rent.

There's the massive societal and moral benefts of social housing - secure affordable housing.

But, if you must reduce it solely to financial. It costs the taxpayer hugely to fund the consequences of the public health housing and homelessness emergency. Much much more than the cost of buying and building social housing.

You keep making the same irrelevant point without tackling the issue head on. What is your opposition to paying people a wage that doesn’t leave them reliant on social housing and benefits? Why do you prefer subsidizing low pay?

It would be impossible for many businesses to afford to pay wage high enough to meet the spiralling costs of private rented or bought housing.

The majority of council houses were built decades ago and the cost of building them has long since been repaid many times over by tenants paying rent to the council. There is no subsidy.

You don't understand what subsidy is. None of the factors you mention, what a house cost to build and how much rent has been collected on it, are of any relevance to the question of whether a house is subsidised.

Here is a short rule-of-thumb that's based on economics. Where there's a waiting list for it, housing is being subsidised.

Wherever market forces govern resource allocation, there is no waiting list, because the price simply rises until demand matches supply.

Waiting lists are literally the alternative resource algorithm that naturally comes into existence as soon as you start trying to defy market forces.

If social housing were not better value for money for tenants than the private sector, no-one would spend extended periods of times on a waiting list trying to get it.

Actually, I need to elaborate a little. Subsidy implies someone is getting more of something than they are paying for. The logical corolllary of that is that the supplier is getting less money for something than it's worth. So, wherever there's a waiting list to be a social tenant, the tenants are on the list because their rents will be less than a market rate. And that means the council, housing association or charity providing the housing is getting less than their asset is worth, decreasing the amount of money it has to spend on the things it thinks are important. Perhaps they think discounted housing is a good use of money. I would say they're better off collecting full rents then spending it on their charitable purposes, then they won't end up subsidising people whose circumstances have changed and who are therefor no longer the best candidates for any subsidy.

If social housing were not better value for money for tenants than the private sector, no-one would spend extended periods of times on a waiting list trying to get it.

Some things are priceless. Stability and remaining close to support networks, for example.

When looking at costs, it's important to bear in mind all related costs. Such as the knock on consequences of social cleansing.

It costs billions to house homeless families and vulnerable individuals in temporary accommodation. Billions more on housing benefts for private rentals, and on the knock on consequences of housing insecurity - mental health support, domestic abuse organisations, social services, criminal justice system.

So how does that work for the 81% of the population of Singapore living in social housing? Are you saying the government are subsidising 81% of households?

I don't how housing is allocated in Singapore, so I can't tell you if social housing there is subsidised. However a quick google has told me that more than 90% of the social housing "tenants" own their houses, to I think it's a very different system, and we shouldn't draw any conclusions about it from one-line statistics.

In other words, if 81% of Singapore housing is HDB (social house), 73% of that 81% is owned by the people who live in it.

@ShinyThingsDistractMe

Why do you believe social housing is a massive cost?

The rent I pay, pays for the services from my landlord (the LA).

My social house was built in 1921, the last century has seen it pay for itself over and over again.

How is my house costing you?

The subsidy on your property is the difference in price between what you pay and what you would have to pay if they let it to the highest bidder, without any restrictions on who can bid.

That difference in price is a benefit to you, and your gain must logically be someone else's loss. That loss means your landlord has less to spend on their purposes than they otherwise would have. If the landlord is the government, that might mean they have to raise more tax. If they are a housing association, they have less money to reinvest in housing.

How many times over past rents cover the building cost of your house has nothing to do with anything.

@Tealightsandd

It would be impossible for many businesses to afford to pay wage high enough to meet the spiralling costs of private rented or bought housing.

Says who? Supply and demand. The concept is as old as time itself.

@Tealightsandd

It costs billions to house homeless families and vulnerable individuals in temporary accommodation. Billions more on housing benefts for private rentals, and on the knock on consequences of housing insecurity - mental health support, domestic abuse organisations, social services, criminal justice system.

You keep dissing the question, why are you so against people being paid enough to house themselves?

That loss means your landlord has less to spend on their purposes than they otherwise would have. If the landlord is the government, that might mean they have to raise more tax. If they are a housing association, they have less money to reinvest in housing.

But when it comes to 'government' money aka the taxpayer, it's impossible to look at social housing in isolation. The costs to the taxpayer of not having social housing is much greater.

The public health housing emergency costs the taxpayer money. A lot of money.

*dodging

sst1234

Well then they'd be an even greater demand for state money. If loads of businesses went bust, people wouldn't be getting any wage, low or otherwise.

@Tealightsandd

No. Two things would happen. Some unviable businesses would go under, because they cannot exist without government subsidy. And people would have to pay more for their coffee and office cleaning (as per examples given upthread).

Supply and demand.

I'm all for people being paid enough to house themselves. If you can tell me how loads of businesses can afford to keep up with the spiralling cost of private housing?

Small business owners have posted about this on other threads.

It's not just about affordability either. Stability is priceless (although lack of it costs the taxpayer hugely).

Why are you so against people having the stability of affordable and secure housing?

Btw what do people too ill or disabled to work or caring for a disabled child do? How do they house themselves?

@riceuten

I do wonder if the kind of idiot who thinks only rich people should live in London considers where the people who will be working in their shops, delivering their groceries and cleaning their streets and homes should live? Outside of London and pay a small fortune to commute in ?

Yes, I know, they should have tried harder at school and they should be grateful they have a job

There's no need for anyone to think about where the lower-paid service workers should live. We expect them to do what everyone, rich or poor, does, and make whatever decision is best for them. If they can't afford to live in London, and the commute makes working here too unpleasant, then they will live and work elsewhere. To the extent they do that, it will become more difficult to find workers, and people will have to choose between going without their services, or paying more, thus reducing the inequality again.

As I said at the start, there's no reason to do anything. Market forces will align salaries and property prices, as much as necessary, and no more.

Your stability argument is a totally misinformed and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s actually dangerous and damaging to society. What is more stable - paying people a market wage or subsidizing them arbitrarily. Making them dependent on whichever direction the political wind blows. Small businesses, if they need subsidies, are NOT viable. They are on life support. You could argue for primary industries such as as agriculture where we need to grow food so could be subsidized. But subsidizing coffee shops and offices to employ baristas and cleaners is NOT viable. If they can’t afford to pay people, they should not be in business - or people need to pay a bit more for coffee.

There's no need to do anything...if we don't mind continuing to sit back and allow huge amount of human misery and suffering to go on.

Ok @sst1234

If you think businesses can afford to pay the ever increasing spiralling costs of private housing, let's do that.

You haven't answered my question about the disabled, ill, and carers?

@Tealightsandd

There's no need to do anything...if we don't mind continuing to sit back and allow huge amount of human misery and suffering to go on.

Ah well that’s that then. An abstract, emotional statement rather than accepting that your argument just doesn’t stack up.

Starting with one of the UK's largest employers. The State. How would you like to fund the massive wage increases in the public sector? Tax rise?

It is ridiculous when there are enough houses in the country for everyone, but to many they're unobtainable- to buy or to rent. Not sure of the best way to achieve it, but something needs to change. As it is and without reform, seems sensible to adjust the list for those who realistically have no chance of ever getting a council or local authority property.

I find it mad that in my area

My HA rent is £600 a month,
Private rental market would have it at £1200 a month
My dad has a very similar home down the road and pays £450 a month mortgage.

Surely this all makes it painfully clear where the issues lie?