speleo1 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 i know this is so you rent and pay forever so cost thousands of pounds in a life time, but home owners dont get there bulky items removed for free,dont get repairs done,have to pay insurances,and maintain there property, and alot of peolple on benefits dont pay rent so they are one up on home owners, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 if I rented a car for a long period I would pay for it many times over. The same goes for EVERYTHING you rent. Do you expect the council to make a loss? Then who would foot the bill for the loss? council tax payers. It doesn't really work to view everything in convenient little simple to understand silos. Providing and promoting affordable housing can save the council, and us taxpayers, money in the long run. It shouldn't take long to work it though - consider the costs of economic exclusion, public health, homelessness, crisis loans, public order, emergency/temporary housing etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It doesn't really work to view everything in convenient little simple to understand silos. Providing and promoting affordable housing can save the council, and us taxpayers, money in the long run. It shouldn't take long to work it though - consider the costs of economic exclusion, public health, homelessness, crisis loans, public order, emergency/temporary housing etc... It is actually more likely to shift expenditure from one heading to another to improve / shore up other services rather than have a direct impact on tax. There is no doubt there is a need for good quality, affordable social housing - it's just nonesense in the OP that social housing subsidises property owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It doesn't really work to view everything in convenient little simple to understand silos. Providing and promoting affordable housing can save the council, and us taxpayers, money in the long run. It shouldn't take long to work it though - consider the costs of economic exclusion, public health, homelessness, crisis loans, public order, emergency/temporary housing etc... name one thing that people rent that doesn't pay for itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 name one thing that people rent that doesn't pay for itself? Things people rent don't pay for themselves. The things people rent take a proportion of the economic surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londomollari Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 name one thing that people rent that doesn't pay for itself? The car, cement mixer, angle grinder that you might rent is a depreciating asset and will eventually become worthless. Because it will eventually be worthless the rent needs to cover its original purchase, maintenance and profit. A house is an appreciating asset which appears to increase in value as time goes by, so rent only needs to cover maintenance and income for the owner; it doesn’t need to cover the original purchase prise. Renting a house should clearly be significantly cheaper than buying a house, but it is more expensive than buying a house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 It is actually more likely to shift expenditure from one heading to another to improve / shore up other services rather than have a direct impact on tax. There is no doubt there is a need for good quality, affordable social housing - it's just nonesense in the OP that social housing subsidises property owners. The social tenant pays for his housing many times over. The extra money he pays finds it way into the economy where is it directed towards property, which in turn increases property prices and enriches property owners. The social tenant subsidises property owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The social tenant pays for his housing many times over. The extra money he pays finds it way into the economy where is it directed towards property, which in turn increases property prices and enriches property owners. The social tenant subsidises property owners. OK then - how much rent do you pay - let's see how many years you'd have to pay rent for to pay for the full cost of the property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Isn't it a homeowners choice to buy then?Of course it is. But home owners are in no way being subsidised by council tenants. ---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 18:46 ---------- The social tenant pays for his housing many times over. The extra money he pays finds it way into the economy where is it directed towards property, which in turn increases property prices and enriches property owners. The social tenant subsidises property owners. The social tenant has to remain in a property for a superbly long amount of time in order to subsidise anything. There are also other factors to consider which you haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 But home owners are in no way being subsidised by council tenants. But Home owners are being subsidised by the Taxpayer. Private landlords let their property to the council. Council tenants pay normal subsidised rent, while the council pay the landlord the market rent they require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.