To think social housing should be means-tested annually like benefits?

[EqualLedgerJay]

Situations change, why should lifetime tenancies exist if income rises? AIBU to think fairness cuts both ways?

This website belongs to a private investment vehicle and they have no expertise in policy or government spending.

but the short answer is, the money comes from the housing revenue account, which is where the rent paid by social housing tenants goes.

and I have explained how the builds are funded within this thread.

Ah it’s landlords behind people receiving unearned income from tax payers! Of course.

It does say above that £11bn on housing development but your point still stands

Of course you have. Honestly, magic houses and I’m the one accused of trolling.

11 billion. Why is it so hard to admit people are subsidising you? Did you genuinely believe I don’t subsidise you? This is the problem with 53% effectively not paying any tax, they simply don’t understand the burden they’re putting on the ever decreasing percentage of payers with their outrageously selfish demands. It’s unsustainable.

You've just proved that you don't understand it or at least aren't reading links properly.

That's housing benefit which also applies to private rentals. Not to mention the fact that not all tenants in SH or private rentals claim housing benefit.

Since there is shortage of social housing, perhaps rents should be raised and the funds used by provide more social housing. It is a very unfair system.

No, no one knows anything for a certainty. I think newer tenancies are different.

This weak government are hidebound by their back benchers though, and I can’t see them starting with social tenants or pensioners - the WFP fiasco cost them enough in votes.

Abd neither Reform or the Tories are even thinking about all this. They’re more interested in what nationalities people are. 🤷‍♀️

You said "Fake news. What is this £15 billion being spent on?"

You have to be earning over £41k to be a net contributor. So people like nurses, bin men, carers, shop assistants etc all people you rely on to keep your life running smoothly, are all a "burden" and have "outrageously selfish demands"?
Oh, and don't forget about those pesky pensioners too.

BTW I do not live in social housing.

In 2022/23, the government spent an estimated £11.4 billion on housing development, with the majority (£9.14 billion) going towards local authority housing

Yes I copied the wrong paragraph, would you agree 11 billion is still a rather large amount tax payers money though? It’s almost a third of the latest increase put on the payers in the last budget.

I said the burden is on the payers not the non payers. The outrageously selfish demands is in reference to …well the outrageously selfish demands and utter refusal to admit they’re already taking far far too much from decent working families. It’s time to stop just thinking of yourself.

That does not mean SH rents are subsidised.
And where is the other £2billion going?
Do you think the government should not be funding any new housing at all? We need more housing, not less.
What is it you would like to see happen?

Decent working families who pay tax also live in SH. This seems to be a fact that keeps passing you by.

They’re into some failed ideology, vanity virtue signalling and settling non existent scores from the 1970s. I do enjoy seeing ex Labour voters as it dawns on them they’re now not ‘working people’ and have ‘broad shoulders’ to pay their ‘fair’ share.

You don't agree that new houses should be built?

What are you saying? The 11 billion being used to subsidise social housing isn’t subsidising rents? What do you mean?

Well a few probably do, but they get a massively subsidised property out of it which would make them net takers.

What’s with your random odd questions that have no relationship to what I post?

Not all SH properties are cheaper than private rental properties. It is very area dependent.

Right. That sounds ridiculous, but if it’s the case then it’s an even bigger waste of my money

Private landlords are after profit. They charge inflated rents. If their mortgage is paid off, then what is it they are actually charging for?

Net recipient is more accurate. Taker sounds grabby and goady, and is exactly why you are using that term.
There is also nothing wrong with being a net recipient, but you have said they are burdens and come out with outrageous demands.
Net recipients are teaching your kids, treating your wounds, and wiping your ass when you get old.

Of course they are after profit? They also pay 5.5 billion in taxes every year and house 4.6 million people compared to SH costing the tax payer over 11 billion a year to house 6 million people,

Who said there’s anything wrong with net recipients? There’s very much something wrong with denying others are subsidising you, constantly asking for more and gaslighting people that you can always squeeze more.

Just admit you’re subsidised, obviously selfishness and lack of understanding about the burden you’re putting on families has played its part and that it’s unsustainable for such a small group of people to pay for everything. People need to reign it in, get realistic and start pulling their weight or the whole country is going to suffer.

It is from the HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Which is, as the name rather suggests, the rent paid by tenants (council housing tenants only- not housing association or other social housing provider)

the housing revenue account is ringfenced to spend on housing development. It is legally not allowed to be spent on anything else.

the saddest part of your post of you haven’t even realised what a wonderfully small amount of money £11bn is to build social housing

And a lot get their profits from the tax payer in the form of housing benefit. When I rented, my landlord did not even live in the UK. So my rent was just going abroad, albeit with a little going to the letting agent.

You are the one that calling net recipients burdens and said they make outrageous demands on tax payers, and are selfish etc. I have never seen anyone under £41k, or anyone in receipt of benefits doing that. You are gaslighting yourself.
It is the government that is squeezing people, not the ones that have less than you.

Again, I am not in SH. I do not even rent. You are not paying for my housing, so chill.

What is it you want to happen to social housing? Because you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about it.

@Bambamhoohoo 11 billion is not a small amount of money to those paying it:
Its 750 million raised by the education tax.
520 million raised by farm IHT
400 million-pension relief
…you get the picture. Behind each of these very targeted taxes are real families and some very real mini tragedies. The reason you think it’s a small amount, is because you don’t pay for it..people have rationalised it as it’s the ‘rich’ as if earning over £100k or sending your kid to a prep school suddenly make you rich and now it’s over £40k when you are no longer a ‘working person’. It’s the direct result of so many people not paying any tax, it’s distorting society so that you see on here people receiving £18k in tax money calling someone paying £30k tax selfish. It’s madness

@RadialEffergy ok, so no more social housing gets built then. Now what?

Please show me where I called net recipients burdens, engage honestly or don’t waste my time with faux rage bait.

Why do I care where your rent goes if I’m not paying it? I don’t. Get a job to pay your own rent or buy a place, it’s a free country.

Yes it’s the Government squeezing people, which geniuses do you think voted for them?