To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

[Bitchesbelike]

On social media, lots of people assume that people in social / council housing are getting a free house and don’t work.

i grew up in social housing: my dad worked from age 15 to 65.

my brothers have worked since they were 16 and both live in social housing.

its not “free housing”: it’s rented, affordable accommodation.

indeed. I grew up in social housing cos my mum (a nurse) couldn’t afford private housing. It was subsidized which is a good thing.

It doesn’t work like that though. That’s like saying everyone is a taxpayer so no one is a net beneficiary from benefits. In reality the people claiming benefits or living in social housing are unlikely to be net contributors of tax.

and that’s how it should be - the purpose of benefits, social housing etc is for people who need them.

It wasn’t.

Why does it need to be said though?
I am on benefits. Why do I need to be told I am being funded by taxpayers? I pay tax on things I buy. I am a tax payer too.
Why do people like me need to be reminded of this? All the fucking time on MN.
WHy?

And there are people in private housing that claim housing benefit.

lol - it’s you who has made stuff up. Social housing providers (as a whole) are very bad at getting value for money. And there is no legal requirement for social rents to include an element that reflects the costs of building, that’s completely made up. same as the nonsense you claim that social housing providers never get any grants. That flies in the face of centuries of government recorded spending.

All organizations can’t spend more than they get in on an ongoing basis. But social housing providers are not prohibited from getting grants- quite the opposite.

anyway, look it up.

Indeed. And people in social housing who get housing benefit (now uc) as well as other government subsidies for housing

Tell you what, instead of telling me to look it up, you give me some links to the wealth of information you claim to have.

And people in social housing who do not claim a penny in benefits either.

But you brought it up! be you said you were a taxpayer therefore you paid for social housing that you live in. Now you’re saying you’re on benefits. Fine. but benefits are government funded and people on benefits are not net contributors to taxation (with a few rare exceptions). So if you don’t want to be reminded of it - don’t bring it up.

My mum lived in social housing as did my whole family growing up. There’s nothing wrong with that. But my family were not net contributors then. Just a fact

Indeed. But their housing is still being subsidized by the state. Because it’s provided at below cost.

It isn’t provided below cost.

No, I said my parents are in social housing.
I am not.

No. Private rents are very inflated. Social housing rates are what it should be for everyone.

I’ve already done this. but ultimately if you can’t accept that social housing is built by grants at all, then I can’t help you. It’s reality

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8963/

There’s a paper setting out some facts. Why don’t you now post your evidence for your claims that there have never been grants to social housing providers and legally they’re not allowed grants. Oh and refer us to the law you claim that requires them to include building costs in rent.

That’s a myth. Social housing is subsidized by the taxpayer. Look at the latest budget

No, you post the figures. Burden of proof is on you.

Already done. Repeatedly. Here’s another government spending announcement with reference to housing budgets.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-chooses-a-budget-to-rebuild-britain

That link actually refers to borrowing to build. So even your own evidence disagrees with you.

You seem to be conflating rents and construction costs there. XenoBitch clearly referred to rents.

So what is being suggested is that the rent covers the day to day running costs maintenance etc, including paying the salaries of all those employed by that HA, so that means its not subsidised?

But construction costs should be part of the overall calculations, along with the cost of buying the land, worked out at commercial prices, even if the HA got a discount and didn't actually pay as much as that. With these costs divided over a specific time period, service and maintenance etc added, to come up with how much it costs to provide this accomodation and that compared with the rent received.

It’s to make them feel superior and a bit better than the rest of us

they arent

they are sad….

Maybe that's why the rent on new builds is much higher to cover the building costs. That would make sense

I would actually suggest it's the complete opposite. So many posters on MN have a massive sense of entitlement and don't give a crap about tax payers. They don't even regard them as people with wants and needs just like them. They couldn't give a toss about the people actually subsidising them. Look on this thread and you will see proof of that. People declaring that they shouldn't be forced to give up their tax payer subsidised housing as this will mean they 'lose out'. When you drill down into it, what they actually lose out on is tax payer funded resources that they now feel they are entitled too. They don't feel like they should pay market value for a property in the same way that all the people actually funding their social housing have to.

I am glad we have a welfare state but sometimes I think that people have lost sight of the fact that the people that are beneficiaries of the system should be grateful to those who are funding them. Without the net contributors then the whole thing falls down. We can't all be subsidised through life.

Ive never thought of or described my parents as an economic unit
Chilling!