Negative HRA Subsidy is real you know!

07/11/2011 4:44 pm

Why do these links not work - where can I find the articles?

07/11/2011 5:02 pm

So does it go back as far is this year 2000 article?

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/negative-subsidy-relief/111436.article

08/11/2011 9:51 am

Does anyone know what happened to the Council's protests that were led by the Conservative Councillors, and very vocal until a year or so ago about why their tenants should be subsidising the treasury, yet have been strangely quiet ever since - did it suddenly become acceptable for their tenants to be overcharged, were those Councillors suddenly happy to be paying negative subsidy. Was there ever any follow up articles, as I can't locate any?

08/11/2011 12:44 pm

Links eh - what's up with IH...

Try: http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=94698

08/11/2011 5:45 pm

They never really won the argument. Currently all rents are collected by the Government and then the money is dished out to Councils in amounts decided by the Govt each year. Some councils felt that they were not getting back out as much as they put in, hence the argument. Under the new system, from April, each council will have its own debt (amount decided by the Government) and its own rents with which to pay off that debt. No doubt many will still feel hard done by because the amount of debt they were required to take on is more than they think it should be.

09/11/2011 1:08 pm

Yes that’s right. There is no subsidy at all in social rented housing. Next up, the Government is going to provide everyone on a low income with an Apple iPad at half the price charged in the Apple store – and all without any use of taxpayers’ money.

09/11/2011 1:50 pm

I take it Nonny could not be bothered to read the back articles, or else why such an ill informed comment.

It is interesting to note that the usual negative-subsidy deniers are, with the one notable annonymous exception, silent.

Hopefully we can expect that to remain and no further 'false subsidy' claims will surface to distract future debates.

10/11/2011 9:20 am

Absolutely Sancho, and the residual cost of that borrowing is what is being distributed to Council's currently (allbeit without the deduction of the massive receipts from Right to Buy nor stock transfer - would any build debt be left if these amounts were included?)

The reason this subsidy argument needs to be put to bed is the propandarising that private rents are 'at cost' and therefore social rents are subsidised. As the amount paid by government is now less than the total rent collection then clearly social rent is at cost already. The denial of this fact by those who insist on pretending tenants are getting something for nothing is simply wrong.

Even the Tories state that at 80%MR sufficient rent will be raised to cover costs, transferred debt, and still leave enough to build all the new homes required - further proof at the excessiveness of private rents, and the non-subsidy of social rents.

What the Tories and the deniers miss is that it is to the State's benefit that people can afford their housing costs, and as wages are driven lower, increasingly this is crucial to the benefit of commerce too. The State chooses to operate a low wage high profit economy and is therefore the State choice that housing development is subsidised. The new arrangement moves the cost of that subsidy from the general taxpayer to the poorest tenants - this is not only unfair, but inflationary on the cost of welfare, which is an inefficient way to fund housing.

So yes, the upfront borrowing to build is 'subsidised' (i.e. funded by the tax payer - although to be funded only by tenants in future) but the long term repayment of that is now met through the rents already. What the Tories are now putting into place is the abdication of social responsibility by the richest and the sharing of their costs across the poorest.

Meanwhile, year after year, tenants have been paying increasing sums over and above that recieved back to fund their homes - substantiated fact!