Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
So the tenants of those council houses bought them at a discount, and are then later letting them out - so one assumes they have moved out of the ex-council house into private accommodation, and are letting there previous (ex-council) house, making it available (which it wasn't when they lived there).
So there are swings and roundabouts - those ex-council houses are available to be rented, which they weren't before....
|
Not really Hugh. The available pool of housing hasn't changed, the only difference is that the taxpayer has just subsidised a private landlord to the tune of 5-6 figures, and is now paying for a private sector rent rather than a social one.
Without right to buy there would've been a house present either taken by an owner-occupier, with a property or chain becoming available, or bought at market rate by an investor who would then be renting it. When those people made their own subsidised by us property available to rent with the rent they receive subsidised by us, adding to the supply, they took another house out of the supply unless they left the country.
This is nearly always a zero sum game. In this case we, the taxpayer, get to subsidise a part of that game.
Personally, call me insane, I would rather there were no right to buy and councils were allowed to build houses, alongside our rating land by its utility rather than designations which would do far more to reduce our burgeoning housing benefit bill and mean we actually have state-owned assets rather than simply funding private landlords' portfolios.
This seems an awful lot to me like far more of a state benefit issue than most - this costs the taxpayer tens of thousands up front then an ongoing charge. Landlord benefit being added to with council tenant benefit.