One Million Council Houses per year.

[apelike]

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

 

Ok, I didnt want to do this but..

 

Definition of subsidy

 

"a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low."

 

No money is being given to the council to keep the rents low so it cant be classed as a subsidy only a lower price.

[unbeliever]

What is the practical, mathematical difference between giving somebody money to buy something the can't afford; and selling it to them at reduced price because they can't afford it?

 

If you want, don't call it a subsidy. But it is the state supplying something they have for less money they can get for it. That means that the state has less money than it otherwise would have.

 

Again. I don't have a huge problem with this when its supplied to people in genuine needs. Especially (and this has not been shown) if it is cheaper than alternative arrangements one might put in place to house the poor.

 

What was actually announced in the budget was that high earners who have somehow got themselves into social housing will be required to pay market rates. That seems perfectly reasonable if one is of the opinion that subsided (or artificially cheap if you insist) housing should be for the needy, which I most certainly am.

Now surely if the state owns a property and sets one rate of rent for one person/family and a lower rate of rent for another, then the second person/family is receiving, if not a subsidy, then something mathematically indistinguishable from one.

 

As I say, you're playing word games. Social housing is a means by which the state provides for certain people that to which others are not entitled. If it's not a subsidy then it's doing an extremely good impression of one.

 

The first definition in the OED of subsidy is "Help, aid, assistance; (also) an instance of this."

The definition quoted by apelike is one of the secondary definitions. Perhaps he was hoping that I didn't have a dictionary and wouldn't check.

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

 

If you want, don't call it a subsidy. But it is the state supplying something they have for less money they can get for it. That means that the state has less money than it otherwise would have.

 

 

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

[unbeliever]

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

 

It's hardly unprecedented for the state to invest in something in the expectation of receiving a positive return. In this case, they're wilfully and deliberately taking a lower return than they otherwise would because they're being kind to the poor on behalf of the taxpayers who then have to make up the difference.

 

I assume that before the last 7 years, social housing was making a loss. Otherwise there would have been no point specifying the 7 years. Am I right?

[El Cid]

It's hardly unprecedented for the state to invest in something in the expectation of receiving a positive return. In this case, they're wilfully and deliberately taking a lower return than they otherwise would because they're being kind to the poor on behalf of the taxpayers who then have to make up the difference.

 

I assume that before the last 7 years, social housing was making a loss. Otherwise there would have been no point specifying the 7 years. Am I right?

 

It was your link, you should have read it.

[unbeliever]

It was your link, you should have read it.

 

I was right then.

 

The guardian was bound to try and put a socialist spin on the matter.

But when one quotes anything other than left-leaning media on here, one then spends the next week arguing about whether it's made up.

 

The fact remains that the state is losing out on £7bn pound a year by under-charging social housing tenants for the properties they occupy. This is, as far as I can tell, probably the right thing for them to do; but because they're doing it, that's £7bn they're not receiving. Some of this is effectively hiding the true cost of housing benefit and some is just straight up less to spend on other public services or tax cuts.

 

If we can stop arguing about this, and quibbling pointlessly about whether this £7bn constitutes a "subsidy" or a "discount" or perhaps a "meringue"; or whatever you want to call it, perhaps we can discuss the substance of the issue.

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[danny12]

Ok, I didnt want to do this but..

 

Definition of subsidy

 

"a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low."

 

No money is being given to the council to keep the rents low so it cant be classed as a subsidy only a lower price.

 

Government and council tax payers give the council a sum of money and they use it to subsidize rents.

[Vague_Boy]

Where would you build them?

 

This was my first thought too.

 

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

 

If there wasn't a need, why did Wilson make this manifesto promise?

 

The Britain we want has yet to be built. Many of our cities and towns are bursting at the seams with growing populations.

 

The desperate shortage of houses to let at moderate rents in our great conurbations can only be met by a large and speedy increase in council building.

 

LINK [Time for Decision, Labour Party manifesto, 1966]

 

Please do more research in future before making spurious and unverified claims.

 

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

 

Do they pay the same price for these products?

 

Do they have the same costs (fixed and variable)?

 

My local Sainsburys 7-11 often charges more for things than I'd pay for them through Tesco Home Shopping. Because they have bigger overheads, due to their longer opening hours and lower turnover.

 

The variation in prices is not due to any subsidy being factored in but many other economic factors that I'm afraid I just don't have the time to teach you.

 

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

 

Please supply a link to verify this claim.

[danny12]

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

 

Do you have a link.

 

Durham County Council sells its last 18,400 homes to not-for-profit housing group for £114m. That's just £6195 for each house. Why sell them so cheap if they can make money from them.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/12887977.Durham_County_Council_sells_its_last_18_400_homes_to_not_for_profit_housing_group/

[El Cid]

 

Please supply a link to verify this claim.

 

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

 

It is not really my claim/link, unbeliever posted it a while ago.

 

I have not yet seen anyone post facts that say council houses were subsidised prior to that.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 18:36 ----------

 

Do you have a link.

 

Durham County Council sells its last 18,400 homes to not-for-profit housing group for £114m. That's just £6195 for each house. Why sell them so cheap if they can make money from them.

 

I have seen houses sold for £1, but that does not mean they have not had many years of affordable service.

Edited September 13, 2015 by El Cid