Discrepancy between social housing rents verses private sector rents - how is this legal/fair?

[floffy]

I cannot understand how the discrepancy between the cost of social rents versus private rents is not breaching some kind of equality/discrimination/human rights laws .

My neighbours live in an identical sized property to ours, they have the same number of kids with no disabilities and roughly the same income as our household, yet they pay 1/3rd (or less) of what we pay and have a secure tenancy, whereas we have to always wonder whether our landlord will extend past 6 months. How can this possibly be legal or fair?

"OpinionatedMum Thu 16-Feb-12 14:46:33

Taxpayers you can untwist you're knickers....

"Let?s make a virtue of this necessity. Every Labour councillor, every council, the LGA, trade bodies like ARCH and the NFA, the CIH, trade unions, the four national tenants? organisations ? all should plan to publicly celebrate on 1st April 2012 the fact that council housing will have paid off its historic debts to government. From April next year it will no longer be subsidised, and in fact it will be making a modest return to reinvest in the homes it provides. Non-profit, yes, but subsidised ? no!"

redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/is-social-housing-welfare-2/ "

Oh dear. That link is from someone who writes:

"However, if someone shops at the Co-op, we don?t describe his shopping as ?subsidised?, do we?"

NO we don't - and that's because it isn't. Doh! It would only be subsidised if the co-op consistently sold goods at below cost price - and continued to do so, safe in the kowledge that it couldn't go out of business because the taxpayer would always bail it out.

If the writer doesn't know the difference between "cheap" and "subsidised", why on earth should we take any of his assertions at face value? I see no actual source for his claims (unless I have missed something).

And even the blogger himself in that link acknowledges: "Of course social tenants pay sub-market rents, partly because of historic grants and subsidies and partly because social landlords are non-profit. "

(Just to be clear, my argument here is one about the facts - i.e. that LA tenancies are indeed subsidised and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.)

Personally, I think it is important that the government does provide adequate levels of social housing. But, in view of the market distortions that the artificially low rents cause, I think in most cases the tenancies should be for shorter periods to encourage people to move home when their circumstances change and/or they can afford to do so.

So I don't think it's fair for elderly lone accupants to continue to occupy 3-bed homes whilst there are many families in need of suitable accomodation - and nor do I think it is fair for people on high incomes to continue to hold council tenancies. With regard to the elderly, I agree that it would be very harsh to evist them in their later years and so it is more a case of having a long-term strategy where people today accept that they will need to downsize when their families leave home, and that expectation gradually becomes the norm - people would expect it and can plan for it.

With regard to people on high incomes (Bob Crow, for example - salary £145k)... well, I don't see how they can possibly justify living in subsidised accommodation when they earn more than 99% of the population. I would have no sympathy with people in a similar position being told to move along and make way for someone who actually needs an LA home.

"so it is more a case of having a long-term strategy where people today accept that they will need to downsize when their families leave home, and that expectation gradually becomes the norm - people would expect it and can plan for it."

In which case, you would support a new law that people who own their own home, who have paid off their mortgage, should have to sell that property and buy a smaller one, regardless of whether they have care needs which require payment, yes?

Because, if the issue is that people shouldn't be able to live in a home too big for their needs, it shouldn't matter whether that home is LA owned or Privately owned.

If, however, it is yet another argument based on devaluing people who don't have the privilege of opportunity, then say it as it is.

Just like this new policy of the Universal Benefit.

PR statements: "Working is a good thing - all families should be working to support themselves, and people shouldn't think they can just stay at home for the children."

Reality: "Errr......of course if the main breadwinner of the home is able to earn enough to support the family, his/her partner may stay at home...it isn't so much about who is working as what they are earning."

So the privileged person who is earning £40,000 per year doing 9-5 Monday to Friday is worth more than the person on NMW doing 7-7 Monday-Friday and 9-1 on Saturday.

Nice

Council houses are taxpayer subsidised, privately owned homes are not. Why should the taxpayer continue to subsidise under-occupation in council houses? And, given that they are intended for people "in need", how can a single pensioner be said to be in more "need" of a 3-bed-semi with a garden than a young family with, say, 3 children?

"Working is a good thing - all families should be working to support themselves".
If they can support themselves on one wage, it's no-one else's business whether or not one parent chooses to stay at home. If the working taxpayer is expected to contribute towards that family's upkeep, they are perfectly entitled to ask "Why should I go out to work and pay taxes to allow x to stay at home with her children?".

"So the privileged person who is earning £40,000 per year doing 9-5 Monday to Friday is worth more than the person on NMW doing 7-7 Monday-Friday and 9-1 on Saturday?".
They might not be "worth" more in a moral sense, but they may well be earning more. It's a well-known fact. Some jobs are better paid than others. Amazing!

bradbourne - council houses are not subsidised by the taxpayer, the rent the tenants pay covers all the costs of maintenance etc.

Pattymayor, there is a difference between council housing maintenance (cost ringfenced so borne by the tenants) and council housing supply (building costs subsidised by the taxpayer) - so we all have an interest in how social housing is allocated

Bradbourne, if the privately owned houses are ex social housing then I would argue they ARE tax payer subsidised - at the very least most will have been at the point of purchase once you take the hefty discount some will have had into account. How many of these are now privately rented out and at a cost which takes them out of many people's reach.

If the tenant is using any form of HB then the taxpayer is STILL paying and subsidising the inflated mortgage which the LL probably had to take out to get the property in the first place.

It's simplistic to suggest that social housing is taxpayer subsidised and private housing is not.

they are perfectly entitled to ask "Why should I go out to work and pay taxes to allow x to stay at home with her children?".

So the working taxpayer (who may well be also in receipt of benefits) is entitled to question why one parent in a low earning couple is at home during the day.

What about if a family have an income above the £18k Universal Benefit threshold, so have no conditionality on their working, but one of the couple has a medical condition costing thousands each year to treat? Should they too be subject to scrutiny?

What about a family where the main income earner earns over the conditionality threshold, but they have a child who needs an expensive Special School?

In fact, a more basic question, what sort of country has a minimum wage that is insufficient to lift a family out of benefits? How can we say to one hard working tax payer that their hard graft isn't enough, yet to another, that theirs is, based on how the supply/demand balance is of their job?

Some of the lowest earning jobs are the hardest work. And although some jobs require more mental energy, it could be seen that for the person with a high level of intelligence, that job is actually less mentally demanding than the person who uses all their mental efforts to complete a relatively 'menial' job.

This government is making it its business to push down the poorest of this country. How dare they aspire to greater things. The few that are determined enough will be ok. The rest will find that the barrier to dignity has just been raised

crystalglasses - if I could think of anywhere that was building new council housing, you may have a point. But I can't, so you don't.

I would love councils to build more housing - why wouldn't I? It's a fuck of a lot cheaper than HB in private tenancies. And on that note, I'm absolutely amazed that people would rather subsidise private landlords' extortionate rents than support sustainable housing. Blimey. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

No one has any idea what benefits other people are getting and I'm very pleased about that. I think some people would quite like the Stasi to be in operation in the UK, reading this thread

Codandchips - you have a good point about ex-council houses which I hadn't considered. I'll have a think about that one.

Lougle: I stand by my point that, if a family are self-supporting, then it is no-one else's business except their own whether one or both parents choose to work. If they are in receipt of benefits then I think it is reasonable for the taxpayer to question the fairness of one parent choosing not to work. Few people complain about people who are physically/mentally unable to work being financially supported by the state - the same goes for people who are unable to work due to caring duties.

As for fairness... well maybe it isn't "fair" that some people earn more than others, but that's just the way the world is. I know plenty families who earn far more than we do! What is fair about some peole being more intelligent/better looking/more healthy/having richer families/being better educated/being better at football than others? What is "fair" about a world where some people work a 12-hour-day for a dollar a week, whilst others "earn" hundreds for sitting around idle? Why do we deserve more than someone in Bangladesh or the Congo, just because we have the good fortune to live in the UK?

Bradbourne - we live in a wealthy country which generally enjoys a high standard of living. I don't begrudge my taxes (I'm a higher rate tax payer) supporting those who are less able one bit. I don't think anyone should be struggling to feed their children or having a Hobson's choice of whether to buy their children new shoes or pay their electricity bill.

I do however begrudge companies and very wealthy individuals using tax dodges to get out of paying their fair share. As a proportion of income, the poor pay an awful lot more for everything than the rich do.

Patti how much does someone have to earn before you consider them very wealthy? (i am trying to understand who you think is getting out of paying their fair share).

'Alemci - clumsily made point but overpopulation of the UK is what is propping up house prices and in turn housing costs. Scarcity drives prices upwards and maintains them.'

So true.

I am the daughter of an immigrant and find it weird that we can't say what is obviously true. The country, the south of it, at least, is overcrowded.

Thanks Albar1d. My grandparents were immigrants too.

Pattimayor - New build council (social) housing stock has been subsidised through taxation since it was introduced in the early part of the 20th century, so we all have an interest in how it is used and allocated. Apart from that, it's true that there is a only a tiny new build programme now, nevertheless there is one. Therefore I do have a point. I can't be bothered to look up where they're being built but you can do that if you wish. Just a simple google will do.

No offence but to be honest I think you're just jealous.

Onnie - who is jealous of what?

Social housing allocation is stuck in the last decade it seems. But I think rather than knocking it you should instead be targeting overcharging landlords.

The government needs to step in and stop this profiteering by renting companies who are gouging tenants left, right and centre. Also I suspect there is collusion among them as you'll often find they will raise their rents and charges year on year for no reason whatsoever.

I'm a private landlord of many properties and I charge about the same as a council tenant would pay. Yet some of these companies are charging almost double for in some cases horrible/unruly tenants. So they neither do the checks or the find proper tenants just whoever is crazy enough to pay their charges.

I really don't think that social housing should be seen as "for life" it should be there as financially supported housing for those in need of it.

Talking about the way this way of thinking would affect an individual is not a good enough reason to not discuss the subject. If new tennants from today were made aware that once they no longer recieve benefits from the state, that they should leave the accomodation, it would free up the need to constantly be building social accomodation.

JSHM don't you think that MOST landlords are actually honest people, not trying to rip anyone off. However the ones (as in any business arena) who are wankers really do alot of damage to the public face of landlords.

Why don't we just submit to a stalinist state and group people into homes, perhaps 4 families to a house at least no tax payer will then have to subsidise an empty bedroom

Bradbourne, I am a HA tenant and I get to stay home, (I work part time self employed and pay all of my rent, Iv'e saved tax payers £26,000 so far by not claiming the HB to which I am entitled, just wanted to drop by and say cheers

I think this all the politics of envy, "I'm better than you, I earn more than you, I can make choices to which you are not entitled, I can have a spare room, you can sleep in a box unless I agree my taxes should house you......."

It would be far better to consider ways in which we can feed and house everyone rather than keep bleeting about entitlement.

Do you think all social housing tenants are on benefits then?

No blushing cow I don't but I do personally believe that it should be reserved for those who are. (I count wft and ctc within that)

So where will they go?