One Million Council Houses per year.

[poppet2]

A previous Labour government (it might have been Wilson's) promised 500,000 a year and never got close.

 

There wasn't a need. Even up until Wilson left office, you could get council accommodation within 6 weeks.

[apelike]

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 15:33 ----------

 

You're playing games with the definition of subsidy.

 

No you are as the definition is quite clear. Even that article which you linked to stated as much.

 

Heading..

 

Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants.

 

It stated..

 

"Let's turn to subsidy for renting. All tenants are eligible for housing benefit. The average benefit payment for private tenants, at £114 per week in England, compares with £82 for housing association tenants and £73 for council tenants."

 

And later..

 

"It could be argued that the economic subsidy for social housing is as artificial as the implicit tax reliefs for homeowners, given that no government is likely to raise social rents to full market levels."

 

So any subsidy is basically what is paid for in housing benefit to those who qualify.

[unbeliever]

No you are as the definition is quite clear. Even that article which you linked to stated as much.

 

Heading..

 

Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants.

 

It stated..

 

"Let's turn to subsidy for renting. All tenants are eligible for housing benefit. The average benefit payment for private tenants, at £114 per week in England, compares with £82 for housing association tenants and £73 for council tenants."

 

And later..

 

"It could be argued that the economic subsidy for social housing is as artificial as the implicit tax reliefs for homeowners, given that no government is likely to raise social rents to full market levels."

 

So any subsidy is basically what is paid for in housing benefit to those who qualify.

 

I would agree that the government failing to charge itself (through housing benefit) market rate rents is zero-sum. What about those in social housing who pay all or part of their own rent? Surely there must be many such families.

 

You must surely also consider that the true total cost of housing subsidy in the UK is not reflected in the housing benefit bill because a lot of it is hidden by artificially low rents in social housing.

 

Just to be clear. I'm not arguing against social housing, merely contesting the idea that it is somehow free

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[danny12]

So if you think that the councils should increase their rents, then private landlords would increase their rents too; costing the state more in housing benefit.

 

Council rents are much cheaper than private rents so there is no reason to think that private rents would increase if council rents were increased.

[El Cid]

I'm not saying that the state should not subsidise housing. I'm just saying that they are doing so.

 

They are making a profit, and setting rents in the Governments and the tenants best interests - that is not subsidised housing.

[unbeliever]

Council rents are much cheaper than private rents so there is no reason to think that private rents would increase if council rents were increased.

 

Quite right.

Social housing is an extra benefit for the lucky.

 

Perhaps it should be extended so that anybody who can't pay their own way in terms of housing is placed in social housing. Then presumably housing benefit could be scrapped. That might be more efficient and have other benefits. It might even work out cheaper for the taxpayer. I could be persuaded of the wisdom of such a policy although I have yet to form an opinion on the matter because of my experience of the inherent inefficient of state endeavours.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 17:09 ----------

 

They are making a profit, and setting rents in the Governments and the tenants best interests - that is not subsidised housing.

 

Yes it is.

Charging people less for something that you could is a subsidy.

[apelike]

I would agree that the government failing to charge itself (through housing benefit) market rate rents is zero-sum. What about those in social housing who pay all or part of their own rent? Surely there must be many such families.

 

 

Of course but those that pay their rent are not being subsidised. Just because social rents are lower does not mean they are subsidised. The subsidy only happens when housing benefit is paid and even that was a debatable paper exercise.

 

In the past the government set the rents, gave housing benefit to those who qualified which then, I believe, got returned to the government. This has the effect of making the benefits budget look higher by not taking into account the rent income from councils.

 

That has now change as council housing is now self funded so any payments now go direct to the council.

[El Cid]

Yes it is.

Charging people less for something that you could is a subsidy.

 

Rubbish, the same products are sold by many different retailers, at different prices.

[apelike]

 

Yes it is.

Charging people less for something that you could is a subsidy.

 

No its not as already explained.

[danny12]

Of course but those that pay their rent are not being subsidised. Just because social rents are lower does not mean they are subsidised. The subsidy only happens when housing benefit is paid and even that was a debatable paper exercise.

 

In the past the government set the rents, gave housing benefit to those who qualified which then, I believe, got returned to the government. This has the effect of making the benefits budget look higher by not taking into account the rent income from councils.

 

That has now change as council housing is now self funded so any payments now go direct to the council.

 

Tax payers fund the council, if they provide cheap housing then the tax payer is subsidizing the people living in that housing.