Torys to cut housing benefit of young

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes - as I said above, if you believe in the creation of a property-owning democracy with a high degree of personal responsibiility, then you're going to try to prevent those who oppose you from undermining that aim by building large numbers of council houses and then letting them at super-low, ratepayer-subsidised rents.

Thatcher moved in an age when the battle between state socialism and private capitalism was live and hot, and the issue of whether or not the state should provide almost everything, and regulate that which it did not provide, was by no means settled. Her determination to not only give people the chance to own their own homes, but also to prevent left-wing metropolitan councils from undermining her aim, should be seen in that overall context.

And, as I also said above, it is far too easy to simply blame Thatcher for our current housing shortage. The blame for that lies in the failure to reform planning legislation, and the willingness of those already on the property ladder to impede the chances of those who aspire to get on it.

Rate payer subsidised rent unless they're in receipt of some sort of benefit how are they subsidised?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Rate payer subsidised rent unless they're in receipt of some sort of benefit how are they subsidised?

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.

[TheDaddy]

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!

[Escapee]

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.

I remember going to one of the local council meetings in the early 1980's, the main topic of a heated discussion was the high levels of rent arrears. The highly subsidised council housing rent at that time made it far cheaper than having a mortgage. It always used to amaze me walking to school in my last year or so seeing council houses with nearly new BMW's etc parked outside, whilst my parents who had a mortgage couldn't afford such luxuries.

[Ignitionnet]

May go some what towards explaining this, along with pensioner bribery.



Not especially clear but Labour polling twice Tory vote in 25-44 age group, over 50% higher in 18-25, Tories well ahead in 65+.

[TheDaddy]

Was out in London last night, the amount of homeless is worse than I've ever seen, on a night like that as well, can only assume how many were there due to cuts

[RichardCoulter]

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.

I think that one of the original aims of Council houses was to provide affordable housing to the poor.

The day that Rent Rebates (Now called Housing Benefit) was introduced, I believe that all subsidies for council houses should have been stopped. My reason being that local taxation subsidised council house rents and income tax (at the time*) funded the Rent Rebate scheme. Why should taxpers pay twice? Why should those on a decent income get a subsidy? Those on a low income no longer needed a subsidised rent when Rent Rebates came into existence as the higher rents were taken into account when calculating assistance for a Rent Rebate.

* The Thatcher Government changed the Housing Benefit subsidy rules; effectively meaning that council tenants who paid their own rent covered the cost of much of the Housing Benefit paid towards the rent accounts of poorer tenants by way of increasing levels of rent to compensate the Housing Revenue Account for the loss of rental income from tenants deemed too poor to pay some or all of their rent.

This is one if the main reasons why council house rents rose so much to, in my opinion, a fairer and more appropriate level in the 1980's onwards.

[nomadking]

Social housing rents are set using factors such as local income. A policy was introduced in 2002(ie under LABOUR) to increase the varying social rent levels in area UPWARDS until they were the same.

Chapter 10 of the Labour Government’s Housing Green Paper, Quality and Choice: A decent home for all, (April 2000) focused on the need to develop a fairer system of affordable rents in the social housing sector. Rent restructuring has been in place since 2002; the initial aim was to achieve the alignment of social sector rents (in the local authority and housing association sectors) by 2012.

That 2012 target was extended by this government to 2015/2016, thereby REDUCING the annual rent increases.

[Taf]

Our council rent is still going up faster than inflation, and to increase the overall take, they are charging more and more for mandatory "other services" such as communal lighting, cleaning, gardening, garages, parking and "improving the area".

I thought all rents across the board were going up faster than inflation..

[RichardCoulter]

An interesting development about a Christian charity trying to stop the Bedroom Tax and the PIP rollout:

http://www.premierchristianradio.com...er-bedroom-tax

One of the comments states that some streets are now deserted and it has broken up communities.

[Gary L]

some streets in towns like Durham are now over 50% empty & boarded up, as no-one will risk taking on a 3 bed property because of the legislation on spare rooms, and caps.

Obviously the councils are still offering 2/3 bedroom properties to people. and obviously if you take them you're subject to pay tax on the surplus bedrooms.
so obviously they can't afford to. so obviously don't accept them. so obviously they remain empty.

so obviously they're not getting any income on the empty properties.

Who didn't see that coming?

[techguyone]

You'd have thought that if only 3 bedroom houses were available, that it would be deemed as 'using what's available' rather than 'choosing to live in a bigger place' and paying the tax and an exemption would apply.

[Gary L]

They were hoping that people would just pay the tax.
but all that's happened is they're increasing the homeless rate. reducing the income by having properties sitting there empty. and making David Cameron look more of a prat than he actually is.

it's madness.
if people can't afford to pay the tax then the properties will have to stay empty.

and some wally will say well they can't be that desperate for a home if they turn it down then.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by techguyone

You'd have thought that if only 3 bedroom houses were available, that it would be deemed as 'using what's available' rather than 'choosing to live in a bigger place' and paying the tax and an exemption would apply.

I completely agree. If someone on benefits is living in a home that is too large for their needs, especially if the taxpayer is paying for it; then it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to move to an available smaller property.

The problem is that there just isn't the housing stock to accomodate them and the Government were perfectly aware of this.

There are many reasons that councils put people in overlarge properties, some examples are:

- The majority of their stock was built for more than one person, this is as the number of people living alone increases.

- For many years many councils and Housing Associations would put eg a newly married couple into a property with extra space. The reasoning behind this was that they would probably have children and would 'grow into the house' without having to uproot the family, change schools etc.

- It is better for someone to take an overlarge property that is hard to let than let it stay empty. Not only do councils lose the rental income, but they have to pay Council Tax on empty properties.

- This Government has made cuts to other benefits that have impacted on the most vulnerable too. For example, Community Care Grants have been abolished. These, amongst other things, were introduced to help families who have to move eg moving costs, plumbing in appliances etc. Without them, disabled people, families under pressure etc simply don't have the resources to move. Even the Thatcher Government who scrapped the Single Payments scheme recognised that some sections of society deserved extra help and so Community Care Grants were born.

They have been put in a position where they can't afford to move or stay.

Taken together, this Government has created homelessness, death through malnutrition and even driven people to suicide.