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.

@Bumpitybumper and @Bushmillsbabe

The issue I have with the 'It's subsidised!' is that people have conjured up an image that my rent is either nothing, or so close to nothing that 'the taxpayer' (of which I am one, not a net contributer but I do pay tax and NI on my earnings as does everyone) is basically paying for me to live for free, or so close to free it's negligible, and judge me morally, 6 ways from Sunday because of it.
It's not free or close to being free, it's cheaper than private rent, but the fact this place was subsidised to be built 50 odd years ago is a small part of why it's cheaper and not the only factor.

As already explained HAs are non profit, have their own repairs teams, they offer less than private rent with what they are responsible for Vs the tenant than private rent and they are designed so that people on low incomes can afford somewhere half decent to live. That's their whole premise.

In private or SH a rent is charged and the tenant pays it, in both, that money could come from private earned income or benefits ('the taxpayer) or a mix of the two, SH is cheaper Vs private because of the reasons highlighted above. So private lets can also be subsidised by 'the tax payer' only that's usually going into private hands rather than a community resource.

And subsidy exists across all of society, when you use any service that's traditionally low paid you're benefiting from lower prices or taxes than they might be, because at least some of the people need more money to live on than the job provides. We end up paying the cost of it one way or the other, either by benefits and SH or a higher base price so those things are not needed.

And people feel just as entitled to those services being subsidised by low wages as you say people are to social housing - but it seems to be more acceptable because they might be net contributers or higher earners or the 'squeezed middle' and see themselves as the saviour of society, paying for everything and ignoring the fact they do actually benefit from those subsidies too, provided by the 'squashed bottom', people are also not backwards in complaining bitterly about the 'lack of service' in return for what they're paying - which isn't enough to survive on without subsidy. So yes, there's entitlement all over society, it's not just the remit of the poorer among us.

When it comes to a lifetime tenancy, I have one. But it is not tied to this property. It is any property the HA has available that I qualify for.

I've already said I am more than willing to downsize, but the majority of HA stock is 3 beds, the 2 beds are for over 55's or disabled tenants, I'm neither so don't qualify, and most one beds are ring fenced for care leavers, prison leavers, people with mental health issues or social needs, those who need more support than I do, moving into one even if I could would definitely be depriving someone who needs it more. And while my DD lives with me, they won't allow over occupancy even if we're willing to (which I would be), a smaller place would benefit me as it would be cheaper to run and easier to look after.

I am encouraged to invest in this place, spend money keeping it nice, but I limit what I do because ultimately whatever I do will be ripped out and it will be taken back to the bare bones when I move out, and if I didn't have some security that I will at least be here for another 10 years until I turn 55 and qualify for a bungalow, I'm not going to invest what little I do have on stuff that I can't take with me when I do leave and that will just end up in a skip. I've put carpets down and keep them in good condition - but I'll take them with me when I go for my new place, I keep the garden clean and tidy but its very basic and mostly things that I can take with me, but I've put a lot of time and effort into it, turning it from the dump left by the last tenants to a bit of green and repaired fences and bits to be functional but it isn't pretty to be honest.

I am (was? Child is an adult now) a single parent, I have no partner or spouse and my child lives with me. On the event of my death she may inherit my tenancy if she meets the requirements to have a SH tenancy (which considering she is in her final year at university and her starting salary is more than my salary now, is doubtful, but it would have ensured she had somewhere to live while she completed that should I have died) it would pass to her in exactly the same way it would to a spouse if I had one.

@Maverickess
It's not free or close to being free, it's cheaper than private rent, but the fact this place was subsidised to be built 50 odd years ago is a small part of why it's cheaper and not the only factor
This just simply isn't true. Who paid to build your house, how they funded the build and who currently owns it is a huge part of why Social Housing is cheaper. The cost of capital is often the biggest single factor in determining what the occupant of accommodation is paying. Even if you take the example of a homeowner with a mortgage, they would pay on average around £150k in interest on a £250k mortgage. Once they have paid the mortgage off after say 25 years then they have a hell of a lot of money tied up in the house. If they released this equity then they could be earning £12K by just having money sat in the bank and potentially even more if they invested in other products and stocks. So there is an opportunity cost associated with tying your money up in housing too.

The fact that the government funds and subsidises so much of the initial build cost, the HA uses cheap or free money to fund the rest and they don't expect their money to deliver a reasonable ROI like most private investors is hugely important. It's what make the model completely unscaleable even if you take away the profit making aspect of such an enterprise. There simply isn't that much discounted land or state capital to support building the amount of SH we arguably need.

I absolutely sympathise with why you can't downsize if the rules don't allow it and think that this is clearly madness. I don't think your child should be able to inherit your tenancy as this is unfair on other potentially more needy people that aren't lucky enough to have a parent with a tenancy to inherit. This is a state subsidised benefit so is different than a private asset.

I think the point you make about subsidised low paid workers is relevant but I would add that it's not just net contributors and those that are highly paid that benefit from this, it is also low paid workers who also use services and products provided by other low paid workers. So basically everyone feels entitled to subsidised low priced services and goods but only a few get to benefit from subsidised housing. There isn't enough subsidised housing for all the low paid workers and things like RTB and lifetime tenancies that can be inherited reduce the supply even further. This is why it is a different type of entitlement as it is a benefit that is restricted to the few and isn't available to the masses.

That's a great point about subsidy being everywhere maverickess.

We, the taxpayers, are subsidising everyone's plane flights through a refusal to adequately tax aviation fuel, whilst they destroy the planet. I do hope everyone tripping off on holiday is suitably grateful to the taxpayers for this? thought not

And that anyone who drives is grateful for their taxpayer subsidised transport?

There's a shortage of housing like bungalows that are helpful for older people.
Lots of people like a garden, even a small one and to have family come home and stay over. A one bed third floor flat isn't helpful.

Council Housing may be subsidised but imagine how much higher the Housing Benefit bill would be if it wasn’t. That’s the reason councils were stopped setting their own rents.

Social housing and also housing benefit could be removed. That way all citizens are paying the same rate and no one is receiving preferential treatment. Citizens would gravitate to areas within their budget

🙄

Heh could you imagine the likes of London if that happened. The elite wandering around wondering why everywhere was shut.

I quite like that idea actually.

And next pandemic i would be even less inclined to worry about protecting my "betters"

On the streets then for many then.
We are better than that, thnkfully.

More homeless people then 🙄

It will be painful at first but ultimately the rental market would level out which would help tenants.

How?

Good job you're not in charge then 😆

Landlords wouldn't be able to secure inflated rates fue to too many people being unable to afford them. The market would find its correct rent per area.

I agree not enough bungalows or social housing. Our governments are to blame & there should be more provision for those who need benefits.
However lots of people like gardens and spare bedrooms but can’t afford them as despite working full time they don’t earn enough. So it doesn’t seem fair that people who don’t work think they should have better than people who do.

14 pages in and still people think social housing is linked to benefits.

One of the worst things Thatcher did (a long, long list) was selling off council housing and not making sure it was replaced.

Council housing/social housing is vital, imo - people need stable, affordable, secure housing for themselves and their families. Private rentals have their place too, but I do not think that they should replace social housing.

Agreed

Where will the homeless go? If you remove housing benefit, then people previously on it would be on the streets. Many of these people will no longer be using benefits to pay for mortgages of private landlords.

Social housing IS a benefit

In a way of mental experiment, if would be interesting and I see the potential for improving housing prices in the long term.

Housing benefits are increasing the overall volume of money available for the landlords to charge and that increases the price of individual rentals. Which is causing that more people need housing benefits to keep up with it.

The transition effects would be terrible though. Too terrible.

Post bedroom tax social housing tenants got moaned at on here for not having a spare room to self isolate in during Covid

Middle classes who are salivating over the idea would have to live in gated communities There is a dystopian TV drama here just waiting to be written.