Old Conservatives don't understand

[SimonH2]

And the rent the council pays out covers the maintenance on the house the landlord owns.

Triple cost to us taxpayers.

Blatant "double dipping".
The rent paid covers the agreed price for provision of services<period>. Out of tbe agreed payment, the provider of the service pays his costs and if they got ut right keaves some profit left over.
When you go to buy a pair of shoes, do you object to paying for maintenance of tbe shop ? Do you get an itemised bill that shows wholesale cost of shoes, share of staff costs, share of utility bills, etc. ?
No, you get a bill that shows the agreed price for the shoes and how that cost breaks down is neither visible nor any concern of yours.

Put a different way.
Suppose there are two identical houses, both privately owned, both bought by the current owners at market prices, both rented to the council for the same rent.
Please explain why you think the council is paying more for one that decades ago used to belong to the council than for the one that was never council owned ?
Thst some previous owner got a good deal way back in the past is irrelevant to the current economics of keeping the properties in good order.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Blatant "double dipping".
The rent paid covers the agreed price for provision of services<period>. Out of tbe agreed payment, the provider of the service pays his costs and if they got ut right keaves some profit left over.
When you go to buy a pair of shoes, do you object to paying for maintenance of tbe shop ? Do you get an itemised bill that shows wholesale cost of shoes, share of staff costs, share of utility bills, etc. ?
No, you get a bill that shows the agreed price for the shoes and how that cost breaks down is neither visible nor any concern of yours.

Put a different way.
Suppose there are two identical houses, both privately owned, both bought by the current owners at market prices, both rented to the council for the same rent.
Please explain why you think the council is paying more for one that decades ago used to belong to the council than for the one that was never council owned ?
Thst some previous owner got a good deal way back in the past is irrelevant to the current economics of keeping the properties in good order.

False argument

I pay lots over money to be in business. I earn more than it costs me. It works for me.

Renting a house out is the same, but if it's costing you more than you are charging then give it up, you've got it wrong. At the same time your asset value is increasing at no extra cost to yourself.

Nobody claimed the council is paying more rent on 1 than the other.

But they are paying somebody else to house people in a house they used to own but had to sell off cheaply. This SHOULD bother you, as a taxpayer.

It is cheaper to own, rent and maintain a house than to pay somebody else to do the same isn't it. If not you wouldn't rent out a property, there wouldn't be any money in it, would there.

I don't mind anybody making money out of any business model. Just don't try and tell me you do it at a cost to yourself or out of the goodness of your heart.

Now explain why a council should be forced to sell a house but not replace it, but you as a private landlord don't have to.

 

[Notch7]

Blatant "double dipping".
The rent paid covers the agreed price for provision of services<period>. Out of tbe agreed payment, the provider of the service pays his costs and if they got ut right keaves some profit left over.
When you go to buy a pair of shoes, do you object to paying for maintenance of tbe shop ? Do you get an itemised bill that shows wholesale cost of shoes, share of staff costs, share of utility bills, etc. ?
No, you get a bill that shows the agreed price for the shoes and how that cost breaks down is neither visible nor any concern of yours.

Put a different way.
Suppose there are two identical houses, both privately owned, both bought by the current owners at market prices, both rented to the council for the same rent.
Please explain why you think the council is paying more for one that decades ago used to belong to the council than for the one that was never council owned ?
Thst some previous owner got a good deal way back in the past is irrelevant to the current economics of keeping the properties in good order.

The difference between council owned house and private owned social housing:

1) council builds house, it’s owns the asset, the gain in asset value is a benefit to the council. The costs to the council for maintaining the property are based on current Labour and materials costs

2) council pays housing benefit to housing association. Housing association owns the asset, the gain in asset value benefits the HA. The housing association charges rental rate based on current market rates, which are linked to current asset values. Also HA are private companies they want profit to give to shareholders.


All this talk about maintenance is a red herring, that cost is there whether council owned or privately owned, the difference is in the ownership of the asset.

 

[Notch7]

Thank God Sir Kier will restore those budgets if he ever gets in power. He will do that, won't he?

During 14 years of Conservative govt council budget have been slashed.

 

[Notch7]

He'll find it. Kier has the solution to every Tory problem, doesn’t he?

Poor Mottie desperately trying to deflect from 14 years of Tory failure that he voted for.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

All this talk about maintenance is a red herring, that cost is there whether council owned or privately owned, the difference is in the ownership of the assasset

it is a red herring, but seeing as these landlords want to keep raising it.

It's still additional expense for the council, our taxes

 

[gas112]

it is a red herring, but seeing as these landlords want to keep raising it.

It's still additional expense for the council, our taxes

you actually think your taxes pay for council house repairs ?

 

[Notch7]

it is a red herring, but seeing as these landlords want to keep raising it.

It's still additional expense for the council, our taxes

Housing benefit is a huge cost.

The reason it is a huge cost is because social housing is managed by private landlords and they are making money out of their asset because they can link rental value to market rates, and no doubt by doing so they make money on the maintenance.

 

[Notch7]

you actually think your taxes pay for council house repairs ?

Do you think your taxes pay for housing benefit.

 

[gas112]

Do you think your taxes pay for housing benefit.

let him answer it himself its clear the 3 stooges in here have no clue of were council house repairs are funded from

 

[nwgs]

and no doubt by doing so they make money on the maintenance.

Now would a private landlord make money on maintenance? When it comes out of their pockets

You’ve come out with some howlers lately.

 

[nwgs]

let him answer it himself its clear the 3 stooges in here have no clue of were council house repairs are funded from

Private landlords make money on maintenance now lol

 

[nwgs]

they can link rental value to market rates

Councils cap any rent they pay below the market rent value. Tenants then have to pay “Top up” which is mainly in arrears

I’ve never read as much ****e

 

[nwgs]

let him answer it himself its clear the 3 stooges in here have no clue of were council house repairs are funded from

He’s giving landlords advice now lol. He’s a legend in his own mind.

 

[Notch7]

let him answer it himself its clear the 3 stooges in here have no clue of were council house repairs are funded from

They are funded out of taxes

It makes no difference whether it’s local or national tax, it’s still a tax

You are desperately trying a strawman to deflect from your lack of argument