Council vs Private Rent Unfair

[UnfairSociety]

Hello

I have a few friends I met in London living in a council/housing association in zone 1/2 and paying lower than the market rate. They had the apartment many years ago but now earning way above average workers' salaries, yet the rent doesn't increase at a similar rate to the private sector.

For example, there is one bedroom apartment that only pays £600 a month. Another 2-bed rooms apartment only pays roughly £700 a month. Do taxpayers have to subsidise the remaining cost of their rent? One of the couples earns a combined salary of £90k per annum and pays this much rent? Note quality of the apartments is pretty good. I hear you they would put the home as a single tenant to earn extra income from their partner and also pay council tax at a 25% discount.

I feel sorry for those in the private sector living in s*tty quality homes and dealing with rogue landlords. Housing crises are a mess in London, and those rich council tenants should pay in line with the private sector or move elsewhere to allow those in need to live there.

Also, they get a massive discount if they buy their council house.

Or here is a novel idea campaign for more social housing to be built , not just affordable but social

Also this is not just a Tory issue , labour were in years under blair and didn't build much or do anything about
RTB is fine as long as a house is built in its place as it often means they sell of older stock which needs more maintenance at times or bringing up to standard and can invest in newer builds
If the goverment was to invest in building more that Would of helped,

@mummybearcub2022 however you dress it up its not a subsidy and you happy to pay more tax as the benefit bill will go up , also why is it a race to the bottom

@mummybearcub2022 also many are run by HA now not LA so the LA would get nothing
We could have a property owning tax as i mean if you bought years ago and your mortgage is low you can pay what house os worth now S I mean why not, why should you of got lucky years ago but someone now isn't . i mean extra revenue LA will have

Now now - @mummybearcub2022 is half way through their correspondence course in "how to get rich quick" and reached Economics - Common Terms (1) Opportunity Cost.

Sadly they haven't read the last page yet which explains profit and loss with respect to HA potential profit versus Housing Benefit actual costs equal or greater than size of benefit plus cost of admin and management.

OP not returned, perhaps they work in shifts.

Also it isn't just the Tories who never built council houses eyc , labour were in for years and when the rent started going up etc and they were pretty poor at building
There can be advantages to RTB if done properly and many social housing companies who sell then re invest that money into building houses , communities efc rob not the same for LA / Counvil
Owned
Many of the stock is Old and in need of work so if they can sell these properties it helps in the long run
We have modular builds now so we could if money was given by goverment built houses quite quickly but then it could crash the housing market I guess
Should never of allowed people to buy 10/20 / 30 houses on interest only mortgages etc
Stamp duty should go up for 2nd homes , 3rd homes etc
Trouble is its all been left too late, house prices need to stagnante for. Few years to allow wages to catch up ib many many areas

Wow. Insults. High brow. You said it's not likely that anyone on £250k would be in SH so one can infer (there's a big word... look it up) that you would agree that someone on £250k shouldn't qualify for SH. An assumption of your opinion on my part but a fairly logical one based on your comment.

If I am alive I am going to need my home. Unless you expect me to live on the streets? It doesnt look like my children are going to be able to afford to move out either so i need the room for them too.
Why shouldn't they get help in the form of being able to save up for a deposit while I'm paying an affordable rent?

How quickly above the threshold? A tax year ? Because that won’t be enough to save a deposit to buy.
So effectively you asking people to move out into a more expensive private poverty with no security of tenure, can’t decorate to your taste or make any long term plans.

So really people won’t bother bettering themselves financially because they’ll never get out of hole.

Much better for people to improve their lot pass this on their kids who hopefully benefit not to need social housing when it’s their time.

I think the point is that nobody on £250k is going to want to live on a council estate, and they can afford not to, so they don't. Ergo, it's highly unlikely that any council tenants are on £250k.

It's perfectly clear that @CrossStichQueen isn't agreeing with you.

@Mydpisgrumpierthanyours I am not saying people shouldn't be in SH. I am a staunch supporter of SH. I am saying SH should be available for those who need it rather than something people get early in life and then just get to benefit from it forever regardless of their personal circumstances. Because I believe that as there is a limit of support that support should be available for those who need jt. I know a couple who are both now retired GPs. They could retire quite early as they could afford to. They were both on more than £100k. One was on significantly more due to being practice owners. They got SH early on in life but clearly their circumstances chanted and did not need that sort of support by the time they were both employed. They now live the life of Riley with extremely low living costs that I believe should be available for others who are struggling. Just my opinion. I have no idea what your circumstances are so I have no judgement of you. Why would I? I am not anti SH. To the contrary, I want more help for those who need it. There is not the resources to give everyone SH or other support so it needs to be allocated to those with needs. Bit just continued to be available just because you were once in need

@VampiresWife my point is that by saying 'no one on blah blah amount wouldn't want to.... you are inferring that they shouldn't be allowed to have SH. I chose £250k as my example. What about £100k? What about £90k? My point is not everyone should be getting SH. Your assertion that they wouldn't want to isn't addressing the point. At present once you have it, you get to retain it regardless of your current circumstances. Please read my previous post just before this one for an example.

@lightisnotwhite it could be that you are assessed every 3 years. Or 5 years. But it's unreasonable that just because you were once eligible SH that you should have it for life. Please read my pp about the GPs near me. Their housing isn't on some horrible estate. It's a small terrace house in London N1 that is now surrounded by others that are privately owned.

But SH isn't only for people in need. Obviously if you are in need when you apply you're given priority. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what you earn and why should it? Housing estates aren't meant to be full of halfway houses, they're communities.

Nobody on £250k (or £100k, or £90k) chooses to live in a 2 bed council flat so your point is ridiculous. You're making up an extreme, hypothetical situation. I'm not inferring that people on higher incomes shouldn't be living in SH. I'm expressly saying that people on the incomes you mention don't want to live on council estates, so they don't. If they did want to, that's up to them.

Everyone is entitled to SH. The fact that there's not enough to go around isn't the fault of mythical millionaires living on council estates. It's the fault of RTB and lack of investment.

For the nth time - your eligibility for SH has nothing to do with your income.

In my block we have two teachers, a GP, a disabled pensioner, a carer and a vet. All are equally 'eligible'.

What do you think makes you eligible?

@VampiresWife not all SH is in horrible council estates and you are quite wrong that people earning good money wouldn't want to be in SH. Please read my post about 3-4 back about the GPs. And my point is as there is not enough SH it SHOULD be for those in need. Not those who go on to qualify as professionals and earn high salaries. Which some do. And those are the ones who shouldn't still be in SH IMO. You are stuck on the idea that they wouldn't want to be. I'm telling you there are people in that situation. I know some. And their SH is very pleasant 3 bed terrace housing in London N1 now surrounded by owner occupied

@VampiresWife my point is that as there is not enough SH, it should be reserved for those in need otherwise those in need miss out and end up shoved in inappropriate temporary housing

@VampiresWife your comments are completely contradictory. You say no one on £90k or a high income would live in SH. You then say your SH is full of teachers, GPs etc. you dint seem to even know what you think

I'm a HA tennant and I agree. If I was earning enough to get out of social I would in a heartbeat! I can't understand why people don't, the houses are not great, and most are in unsavoury areas.

that’s not true. Social housing (council and housing associations) is subsidized to charge lower rent. That’s the point of it. Social housing is funded partly by public money (and obviously partly by rental payments) in order to provide affordable housing.

I think there is an issue with allocation and under occupancy of social housing when there is such a shortage. I don’t think it’s fair that pensioners get housing benefit for a property much larger than their needs for example- we should be incentivising them to move to a more suitable property to free up housing for families.

Huh? How many teachers do you know who earn £90k?!

Housing associations are not for profit organisations, so increasing the rents would benefit in so far as they will have more money to plow into repairs and social improvements, but no chance they should be at the crazy private rent levels.

Does anyone remember the brief 5 year tenancies social landlords had to give out, whereby the tenants were meant to be assessed at the end to see if they still qualify? They didnt last long.

Whilst i do agree there needs to be more turnover in social housing, because it is in such high demand the only answer really is to have more affordable housing elsewhere. It's wrong that someone earning £90k has social housing, or single people still living in larger family size homes but it would be equally wrong to toss them on the street surely!

The properties themselves also have a banding to allow all bandings the opportunity

Absolutely

The difference between the council rent and private rent of an equivalent property is the amount by which the private owner is exploiting and overcharging because of a poorly regulated market and insufficient house building.

We know now that there really is a magic money tree - whenever it fits in with government policy it is perfectly possible to find many billions of pounds from nowhere. Doing that to commission a mass building project to create sufficient council homes for anyone who wants one, with rents calculated so as to pay back the building cost plus ongoing maintenance over the next 30 years, would be perfectly possible, would be revenue-neutral in the long term and would boost the economy through massive new employment opportunities, and would drive market rents down to closer to affordability. It won't happen though because so many MPs (labour included) are the very same exploitative private landlords