Cost to the State of the 3.3m social tenants on HB: £12B. Is this VFM?
31/07/2010 7:38 pm
Interesting stat in the DM coverage of the HB capping proposals:
"In total, 3.3million tenants- 70 per cent of housing benefit recipients- live in the social sector at an annual cost of more than £12billion."
Have the Tories missed the elephant in the room here? £12Bn of the £20Bn annual cost of HB is spent in the RSL sector not the PSL. Surely the next step has to be doing something about the RSL slice of the HB pie? Making work a condition of new RSL tenancies like H&F are doing with one third of their allocations seems a no-brainer here...
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
31/07/2010 8:44 pm
Do your think that all unemployed people are sponges. I've done everything in my home to new kitchen and new bathroom at my own expense. I'm in my mid fifty and cannot get a job in London. I also tried to do Voluntary and Work Experience via the Job Centre to be one in 4,000.00 whom applied. I spend allot of my own time help Customer's in my ward and I take a interest in join my Housing Association Group. I voluntary to our Resident Property Service Director to help with adminstration duties which he will not ever answer me.
Who the hell does the government think they are - we know why we are in this state is because of the Banking World. Also because of the amount of people we letting into the country whom are not leaving and living in Social Housing and on benefit's and having child after child after child. What we going to be told due to believes we cannot tell these people what to do - Well after two children no more Child Benefit and only Children Tax Benefit if people work.
I have to do mutual exchange after mutual exchange to get what I wanted.
I only just got it in the last two years and spent allot money on the property.
Well I only move if the property want me to go into the fixture's and fitting's have to be like for like. Or give me all the cash I put into this property. If my children move out and to be honest in this country at this moment in time how the hell can our children go out in the big wide world and earn this kind of money to rent a property.
My children at collegue and one is going to universary next year.
I hope the solicitor's reading this website start looking into the law books.
01/08/2010 11:04 am
Junior: "Also because of the amount of people we letting into the country whom are not leaving and living in Social Housing and on benefit's and having child after child after child. What we going to be told due to believes we cannot tell these people what to do - Well after two children no more Child Benefit and only Children Tax Benefit if people work."
Can't argue with any of that. Have been saying that for years. To get a proper grip on the welfare bill, the importation and housing and feeding of third world immigrants at the expense of the State must stop. Child benefit to stop at two for married couples and one for single parents (replacement on a like for like basis only) with Gordy's laughably named Working Tax Credit (with the work element being optional) to be reformed to actually reflect it's name.
02/08/2010 2:26 pm
At an average of £69 per claim per week I suspect that the figure is artificially high as this would exceed the average cost of rents nationally for the same RSL properties, allbeit by a whisker.
If the figure is accurate then the average private sector rent benefit would be £64 per claim per week.
This needs clarification as it sets a completely different context on the benefits debate by suggesting the private sector benefits are on average lower than public sector ones.
02/08/2010 3:04 pm
Lets first of all get the correct statistics - the official ones not the DM ones.
Numbers - Council tenants -1.517m HAs 1.77m - total social tenants 3.288m - Private tenants 1.428m
Costs average per week - Council £67.44; HA - £77.02 (social av - £72.60); Private - £109.25 average (LHA = £112.94, non LHA = £103.65)
Total social housing HB cost is £12.457bn pa for 70%
Total PSL cost is £8.141bn for 30%
The total HB bill is £20.6bn and the PSLs take 40% of this yet account for 30% of the supply.
Social housing takes 60% of the take yet accounts for 70% of the supply
So to answer ILAGs direct question, social housing is undoubtedly VfM when compared to the PSL provision. Correction is it more cost-effective and as it provides greater stability, greater quality of provision and greater security it is much greater VFM than its PSL equivalent.
Another way of lookiing at this is if all properties were rented at the (PSL) market rate the cost of the HB bill would be £26.9bn rather than £20.6bn or about 30% more (all for an inferior product and service lest we forget!)
I dont know where DM got the average of £69 per week as this is false. The average in all social housing is £77.02 - the PSL average is £109.25 and the overall average - of HB in payment figures) is £83.74
All the above figures come directly from the DWP figures published on Wed June 16 in the SHBE
One very interesting stat in there which shows the extent of profiteerog by PSLs is the private regulated tenants costs. Only 50,370 of the 1,428,080 such tenants remain and their average regulated rent is £75.91 per week whch is LOWER than the average HA rate of £77.02 per week.
So it appears that when the PSLs are regulated and their rent levels covered by regulation they can provide cheaper than RSLs!!
The elephant here is clearly regulate the PSLs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
02/08/2010 3:37 pm
Hi Joe - before you get assaulted by way of response
I calculated the £69pcpw from the data included in the thread starter. If this is as wrong as your data would suggest then either the data in the thread starter has been manipulated to present a flase argument, or the data in the thread starter is based on data that has been manipulated by the Daily Maily jounos.
Your data, stating psls as 30% higher than nonpsls makes far more sense and aligns to the values generally advertised and acknowledged.
The question had to be asked though because based on the data given in the thread starter here the reality looked so much different.
02/08/2010 5:02 pm
That is the link to the official statistics which has just been upgraded to include April 2010 (last ones and ones given above were March 2010 figures)
The council average HB payment has gone up 42p per week; HAs gone up 41p a week; and PSLs gone up 49p
Hence the percentages given above are all largely the same. Almost 28,000 more claimants of which more than 20,000 are in PSLs (interestingly 75% of new claims coming from PSLs!!)
The total HB figure becomes £20.862bn per annum
Can any of the apologists for PSLs out there say how regulated private tenancies cost HB just £76.10 per week yet LHA ones andnon- LHA ones cost £113.38 and £103.94?
Surely if regulated private tenancies can be profitable at £76.10 on average per week then there is no need to charge the state £37.28 more (49% uplift) - This makes a mockery of the PSL apologists statements on here claiming that PSLs need to charge more due to social housing subsidies.
Hence if the other no regulated PSL rents were at the regulated level the public purse saving is £2.546bn per year.
Regulate PSLs - a huge elephant in the room wouldnt you say?
02/08/2010 5:13 pm
Social Housing subsidies - would these be the same subsidies that local authority tenants have paid more to the treasury than the treasury has paid to the government of late, i.e. negative subsidy?
02/08/2010 8:51 pm
Mr Halewood - I give you the Tommy Cooper of figures.
A social rent is not a market rent. It is about one third of a market rent. In these circumstances it can only be assumed that the difference between social and market rent is a direct subsidy from the taxpayer to social housing tenants.
How you could miss this subsidy can only be explained by your blinding loony-lefty fascism.
On top of that is the £37bn the taxpayer has bunged to the social housing tenant for Decent Homes work.
Still what's a billion here or there.
Then there's the bill to the taxpayer for immigrants brought in "to stuff multiculturism down Tory throats", according to Andrew Neather, former speech writer to Tony Blair writing in the Daily Mail in the early part of this year.
Again, just like one of Tommy's dud tricks, Mr Halewood doesn't want to acknoledge the inconvenient truth that break the spurious scaffold of meaningless figures he uses to support his argument.
02/08/2010 9:27 pm
I can see where you are getting lost on this one Mr/s Anonymous.
Market Rents return a profit. Social rents are not supposed to return a profit, which is why they are termed 'social'. There used to be subsidy paid, but recently subsidy has been negative, meaning that the tenants have paid money to the treasury, not received money from it.
For clarity, because I know it can be difficult for some to grasp such complex notions:
Social Rent - not for profit
Market Rent - some profit
Private Sector Rent - what ever you like to charge (or whatever you can get away with and have housing benefit pay) scale of profit
So there you go then - just like that - Ah ha ha hars
03/08/2010 0:25 am
Think you missed the £37Bn elephant in the room that was DHS there CW. No mention of that from any lefty I see. Where do you think that money came from? The Stork? No, it come from general taxation. Yes, the same tax that homeowners, PSL sector landlords and their working tenants pay and that the two thirds of RSL tenants on benefits don't....
Social Rent may be "not for profit" but someone has to make a profit and pay tax on it in order to afford to even have "not for profit" Social Rent on the books of the State in the first place, especially with the last £37Bn splurge spent on them still burning a hole in the nations finances....
03/08/2010 9:55 am
Sorry for not mentioning decent homes. I also did not mention other capital works nor day-to-day repairs, which was so bad of me I know, especially as you started this post to discuss rates of benefit. When you end up ranting on your own thread it really makes me think of the lunatics baying at the moon.
I'm a property owner - I know, shocking isn't it - and I welcomed the government grants, for updating and improving my home, that I have received over the past couple of years. Good job I'm not a tenant or you'd be blasting away at me for not deserving the money.
03/08/2010 10:20 am
As we now appear to be in a room full of elephants, perhaps 'the right' could find a different cliche to use when demonising social housing.
Anyway, I can't speak for LAs and ALMOS, but I know that the cost of decent homes amongst many Housing Associations was met through the disposal of non-grant funded properties or through cross-subsidy from sale/market rent/shared ownership developments.
If there are any disregarded pachyderms in whatever room it is that we're supposed to be in, it's the fact that in trying to improve people's homes by giving them all cheap kitchens, decent homes managed to significantly slow development and reduce affordable housing stock.
03/08/2010 10:40 am
How about the penguin in the shower?
The beaver in the toilet?
The alligator in the soup?
The small print in the lease perhaps?
03/08/2010 11:50 am
The silence is deafening.
Our Mr Halewood is only too ready to pop up at a moment's notice to slice and dice the figures as if he takes a nose full of the white stuff on his cornflakes every morining, afternnon and evening.
But on that £37bn he has been struck dumb.
And Mr Webb attempts to neutralise the £37bn by asserting it's a government grant.
This establishes him as a loony lefty fascisti. For your information, that £37bn is directly out of the taxpayer's pocket. It is monumental subsidy.
And now I come to think of it, why is it in Mr Halewood's calculations of revenues from housing receipts there is no mention of capital expenditure through the Housing Corporation, again by government grant, again out of the taxpayer's pocket.
Such inconvenient figures.
03/08/2010 12:06 pm
Has anyone come up with a reason why regulated private tenancies can survive and presumably make a profit when they get less HB than RSLs?
After all they have no subsidy at all do they! So why are non-regulated LHA private tenancies charging the public purse so much more? Well i say so much its only 49% more!!!!
The above are simple questions of fact and not of political opinion at all. They dont concern any public subsidies either and so they expose the profiteering rip-off that non-regulation PSL HB/LHA costs are. They also expose as false the arguments that PSL costs are dearer due to social housing subsidies.
Finally any notion of VFM should include cost benefit analyses. Public subsidies are there and derive public benefits. Stability, affordability and incentives against worklessness, not forgetting the reduced social and health care costs all of which are much reduced with unregulated private tenancies.
But the obvious question is why can regulated private tenancies make a profit at 50% less funding than unregulated private tenancies?
Methinks the elephant needs to trample the Meerkat - Simples! - Compare the Market anyone?
03/08/2010 12:16 pm
Hello Mr Read, I take it that you can't.
I asserted no such thing. I did however point out that as a property owner I had received government grant covering some of the same items as the decent homes programme. This was money out of your pocket into my private asset - thanks for that, most welcome of you.
Extending your logic to any money paid out by government ever needs to be added into the equation would have an interesting effect on your beloved Right-to-buy. Should the discounts be paid back so that the hole in your pocket is less. How about all of the tax incentive support for small business which came out of your pocket. Did you realise that the guy down the road from you who had an operation recently did so using cash out of your pocket. Damn you sir, I've just learned that you too have had government money spent on you. The cheek of it.
03/08/2010 12:50 pm
Joe Halewood: "Has anyone come up with a reason why regulated private tenancies can survive and presumably make a profit when they get less HB than RSLs?"
Yes, I believe so. Would it be something to do with the fact the regulated private tenancies are also extremely longstanding tenancies, ie pre 1989. This means:
- That the price that the landlord purchased the property for is likely to be low and so therefore will any mortgage repayments.
- Many such PSL's will have already paid back the mortgage debt and are now able to maintain a helathy profit margin at the regulated rate.
- This particular group of PSL's have little to no issue with arrears, void loss etc.
Just a thought.
03/08/2010 12:58 pm
Anonymous? - So that same model is now redundant is it? Of course it isnt so why cant it be followed today?
Or has that model disappeared into the ether then?
03/08/2010 1:04 pm
Do you agree with my explanation then Joe?
The model has to some extent disappeared into the ether, yes. House prices are much higher, which means that mortgage payments are higher which results in a higher rent being required to cover costs and produce a return on the investment.
With so many PSL's actually being just ordinary people who have decided to invest in property rather than the stock market for their pensions, reducing the maximum rent on properties once they have been paid for is likely to discourage PSL's from holding onto the asset.
03/08/2010 1:48 pm
What typical ILAG tosh, serving up false statistics from the beloved Daily Mail to provoke an opportunity for his cronies to come in on a tenant scrounger bashing feast. When it is shown that the maths just does not add up then he brings in decent homes spending as a means to carry on the rant. Then colleagues suggest the original building costs should be added in as well.
Wasn't this a question of is the money spent of benefit value for money. The answer is obviously not.
It would be better to take steps to ensure that people could earn sufficient to pay a reasonable rent in the first place. Ultimately any state benefit is bridging the gap between the wage and a fair return on the work done to earn that wage.
If you look at the companies run as cooperatives, manual worker wages are 6 to 7 times those in comparable firms. The companies are competative, but the workers are benefit free. If you wish to reduce or even remove the cost of benefit then allowing workers to receive the just return on thier labours would be a good place to start.
Real solutions do exist, but is that what the posters here really want to have put before them?