Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Prior to the 1980s it was not uncommon for councils to collect less in rent than it cost to maintain their housing stock. The maintenance costs were therefore subsidised by rate payments. There is an argument that this is fair enough, if well-off homeowners are subsidising the rent of those who need social housing because, for whatever reason, they can't afford to rent or buy commercially. However, when renting a council house was de rigeur for an entire swathe of the British working class population, thanks to the large number of council houses that existed, the existence of artificially low rents basically amounted to the large-scale subsidy of council tenants by private homeowners, regardless of whether there was a social need for it (often, there wasn't). Local councils were, in effect, involving themselves in the business of wealth redistribution rather than simply providing socially necessary local services.
|
Wow the rent must have been cheap if the council couldn't make a profit out of them over the life of the house and you'd think given that they'd have been really well maintained and not in need of the cash from right to buy being unlocked by labour to renovate what remained as they were dilapidated!