One Million Council Houses per year.

[unbeliever]

Why would you need a deposit? I can understand the need for a bond or even a rent in advance?

 

What 'free things' are you meaning? Repairs are done and improvements are made but I'm sure that should be same for private renting as landlords have responsibility for the property. At the end of the tenancy, the house still belongs to the council so the rent paid would go towards the building and upkeep of house.

 

There are some council houses in Sheffield that are over 70 years old. I'm sure that the rent collected over the years has paid for the building, maintenance and 'free things' with plenty left over - so no subsidy needed if it's done right.

 

In 2012 the 'economic subsidy' of artificially low social housing rents had a value of £7billion.

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

 

If the state sold all these houses at market value, or rented them out at market rates, there would be more money to spend on other things.

That's a subsidy.

 

Private tenants are required to pay a deposit to cover possible damage to the property. The absence of that from social housing is a subsidy.

When I was living in a mixed private/social housing areas, the social housing tenants got new boilers, insulation and new fixtures and fittings. The private sector tenants get boilers when the old ones break. If they want insulation, they'd have to persuade their landlords or fund it themselves. I've never heard of them getting new fixtures and fitting except perhaps landlords do this between tenants to increase the value.

Social housing tenants also can't be kicked out after a year if the landlord feels like it.

There's also protection all over the place for social housing tenants which does not cover private renters.

These things all have an economic value.

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

There are clever ways of hiding subsidies these days so that you can claim there is "no subsidy".

 

I didnt think it would be too clever for you

 

Technically in the UK, you don't completely own the land as it to some degree always belongs to the state, but that's just a technicality with no practical implications.

 

Sounds a little like QE, the money doesnt exist

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 12:10 ----------

 

Council housing has been making a profit for the last 7 years, which has been paid to the Treasury.

[monkey104]

Everything else aside, where would we put 40,000 houses?

[El Cid]

Everything else aside, where would we put 40,000 houses?

 

On green belt land, our country was once covered in trees, just like a rain forest.

[mda03cn]

So, what is the alternative, unbeliever? Would you put in place a bond system for council house tenants? Not replace boilers until they were broken or dangerous? Increase the rents so they were equal or higher than private rents? Or perhaps abolish social housing completely and just have a private sector?

 

How would you address the issue of affordable housing without the provision of social housing?

[Happ Hazzard]

You can't just build a million houses a year, there's a hell of a lot of other infrastructure that would need to be built as well. And as long as you keep building houses, the population will keep growing. The problem is not too few houses, but too many people.

[unbeliever]

So, what is the alternative, unbeliever? Would you put in place a bond system for council house tenants? Not replace boilers until they were broken or dangerous? Increase the rents so they were equal or higher than private rents? Or perhaps abolish social housing completely and just have a private sector?

 

How would you address the issue of affordable housing without the provision of social housing?

 

I never objected to social housing.

But there is a cost and that should not be ignored in the debate on the matter.

[El Cid]

And as long as you keep building houses, the population will keep growing. The problem is not too few houses, but too many people.

 

I agree, too many people; but more houses does not mean more people, you have it the wrong way around.

More houses means lower prices, which is good for the young and the poor, but not the asset rich.

[unbeliever]

On green belt land, our country was once covered in trees, just like a rain forest.

 

That space is needed for wind farms and other environmental concerns that you seem rather supportive of in other threads. Bit inconsistent.

 

Still you have a point. But if you relax planning restrictions in the way you describe, the cost of building new houses would go down. Then as supply increased, the cost of buying and therefore of renting all houses would go down.

In which case you'd fid that the need for social housing went down as well.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 14:13 ----------

 

I agree, too many people; but more houses does not mean more people, you have it the wrong way around.

More houses means lower prices, which is good for the young and the poor, but not the asset rich.

 

It's also not good for a great many people who struggled hard to raise a £10k deposit for £90k mortgage for a £100k house which would then be worth a lot less. Wipe 15% off the value of that house and they're in a lot of trouble.

 

That issue can be addressed by implementing the plan gradually. Then house prices would not fall in cash terms but would gradually fall in real terms (of various kinds) and would gradually become more affordable.

[apelike]

I have always thought, like you, that there was a subsidy, but I am yet to be given facts that there is.

 

That because the rent its not subsidised.

 

The governments have taken more in rent in the past to pay for those homes many times over. The fact that they are not being rented at an inflated market rent does not mean they are subsidised as council homes were never built to mirror market rents. Social housing rents were set as affordable rents.

 

The strange bit is that if social housing rent go up then so does the housing benefit that may be paid so raising rents is in a sense counter productive. So dont be mislead by others that claim a subsidy exists when it does not.

 

Now, the new Help To Buy scheme is costing the taxpayer £billions and IS a subsidy as it is paying towards a private sale mortgage.