To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

[Itchthescratch]

I come from an area with low house prices. It is great! My friends can generally afford houses even with lower salaries as the earnings:house prices ratio is better. Rents are also lower so they have proportionately more disposable income.

I have moved to a more expensive area where house prices are higher and people have really had to push themselves to buy a property. Salaries are higher but not high enough to make up the difference. They have had to pay more stamp duty , pay more interest and have less disposable income each month.

I am really struggling to understand why my friends in the South should also automatically be paying more property tax under the new proposals being suggested by Burnham supporters? What is the justification? They would love to buy a large detached house for £300k like my friends from home but this isn't possible. It feels like they are being double penalised.

Just to add house prices haven't risen in real terms in the area in live in now for 20 years so the value of my friend's houses is simply money they have paid in.

@Itchthescratch

Just to make you aware, there is a tried and tested pattern with a couple of posters. They'll swear blind they're right while conveniently avoiding the main substance of your posts, even when you provide evidence to the contrary. Instead, they will try to derail or hijack the discussion by arguing over technicalities and semantics rather than fully engaging with your argument. They will insist that you provide evidence for every point you make, while expecting you to accept their own position simply because of their perceived moral, academic superiority or other credentials.

See where your thread is heading...

@EasternStandard and OP: UC can be applied to any type of housing. In no way is it specific to SH.

I am with Hansard and @Blossomtoes on this. When most people griple about SH subsidies, they are ill informed. You illustrated this by bringing UC into the picture when it applies equally to the private sector.

I haven't mentioned UC. Can you please address the points I made and explain how funding half the build costs with taxpayer funded money or even taxpayer backed loans isn't a form of subsidy? If it isn't then please can the state either pay off half my mortgage or build me a house where I will pay half and they can pay half.

I said this isn’t what people typically understand as subsidy. No one has mentioned it in many, many pages over three threads until I did here. I believe that if you yourself had known about it, you would have said so.

Your mortgage is also a repeated, ongoing cost.

That’s what came up when I googled. Shake your fist elsewhere.

Of course tax payer money is involved.

Yes that sounds great. Then @poetryandwinecan argue that no tax payer money has been used.

You are correct OP in that it was @EasternStandard who mentioned UC in relation to SH. This is a red herring in that the housing element of UC can equally well be applied to private sector housing.

One may as well say that private rentals are subsidised by the government.

Sure if you like. It’s still tax payer money. If someone got half of their mortgage paid off by the gov / tax payers are you at subsidy yet?

What does this situation have to do with that of someone living in SH? One is a mortgage. the other a rental. Apples and oranges.

We cannot calculate the worth to either the LA or the tenant of discounts obtained by the LA in purchasing land, building SH and calculating rents. We don’t know the terms on which the LA borrows money, which are generally very favourable.

It’s quite straightforward. Are you paying the full market value rent for the property? If not it’s subsidised.

On the one off v over time it can be a one off

Yes, a subsidy can absolutely be a one-off . In the UK, these are formally known as "ad hoc" subsidies and are awarded as individual, standalone grants rather than part of an ongoing scheme.

@poetryandwine

Disagree. Any landlord can choose to rent for under market value. We see MumsNet landlords doing this all the time.

And that’s the landlord subsidising the rent.

Yes it seems an odd hill to die on. It’s a subsidy for SH. That’s why it’s attractive. Plus the security.

The relevant point is that you are suggesting that SH isn't subsidised and that the government directly funding or effectively providing very cheap capital to build SH isn't a form of long term subsidy. Of course it is. If they didn't do this then SH rents would have to be higher to meet the costs of repaying the original build cost or the capital to build the property would have to be repaid directly by the state and then it would be super obvious it's a subsidy. Just because the money is all front loaded, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make a difference long term.

The comparison with a mortgage is just to illustrate the point I was making. We all know how someone paying half our mortgage or half the build cost for our house would impact our ongoing payments. It is the same with SH.

I would love to know why you're so determined to prove that She isn't subsidised. Do you live in it and want to believe you pay your way?

I have never lived in SH nor accepted help with a down payment or mortgage. DH and I paid off our only mortgage long ago and have bought for cash since.

Manchester city doesn’t have cheaper council tax, we pay more than most Greater London boroughs so your example here is fundamentally flawed. I know because I live here and most of my family live in London.

Then why the insistence? Surely you understand that it is subsidised even if you think there are misunderstandings about UC etc. Ultimately this is what makes it affordable for tenants and I don't think we should shy away from this. Absolutely explain that it can have some pros versus relying on private landlords, but non means tested lifetime tenancies being subsidised by the state are a meaningful advantage for some in this country.

But you get "free" prescriptions.

And free nursing home care, if/when the time comes.

Take it you're not an SNP voter!

Yep a subsidy isn’t an insult and it’s usual language to say something is subsidised if money comes from elsewhere. It’s an odd objection.

Manchester City has slightly below average Council Tax compared to the rest of England and the North West. Importantly though they also have far more properties that fall into Bands A and B than most areas so therefore the average resident pays less than the average resident in most other areas.

Cities in general are lower than rural areas.

I would love to know why you're so determined to prove that She isn't subsidised. Do you live in it and want to believe you pay your way?

In my case it’s because facts matter to me. The housing account held by a local authority is ringfenced and no cross pollination between it and the general fund is permitted, legislation forbids it.

Like @poetryandwine I live in a house we own outright. I have no skin in the game.

Thank you.

Posters are getting it wrong in any case. A gov subsidy can be a one off grant.

A HRA ringfence doesn't stop the national government subsidising SH through specific grants or funding build costs directly. All the ringfence does is to stop councils using local general funds to subsidise SH.

If facts matter then you wouldn't be bringing essentially red herrings into the debate. I don't think anyone has suggested that SH is subsidised at a local level other than the opportunity cost of not charging market rents.