>it is only the most recent arrivals who receive lower subsidies per working age person than those born here, reflecting that there are still some effects of NRPF conditions in limiting access to social housing.
This is a bit of a hand-wave really - 'only the most recent arrivals'.
Since 2010 according to the data presented above is not merely 'only the most recent arrivals'.
That's 15 years of policy. If social housing is indeed sticky, ignoring 15 years of recent policy in favor of policies nearly two decades ago seems strange.
And surely having half the subsidy per working age person despite being disproportionately based in London is also something that needs to be taken into account?
And the argument about not paying market rent being a subsidy strikes a little hollow. Everyone who doesn't pay market rent is theory getting a subsidy - someone paying a mortgage is getting a subsidy as most mortgages tend to be lower than market rent.
In addition, there is a methodology in this data that I'd be curious to hear more about. The article talks about the household head being foreign-born - is that the same as a foreign household?!
For example, if a wife was born in the UK and the husband is foreign-born but they claim social housing as the wife is a citizen, would they count as a foreign-household in this data that this article is presenting or as a native household?
This would surely over-estimate costs if you're assigning all of those costs to the 'foreign' head as opposed to the spouse/partner who is not foreign-born? If this is the case, one would expect any reasonable piece to separate out this or account for this?
Some good questions from Ro re methodology, however comparing people who pay mortgages ( where the tax payer contributes nothing) with social housing where the tax payer either contributes with benefits and or subsidised rent is not a fair comparison. We have housing associations and council housing here,,but we also have PRS houses rented out to large rental companies like Serco, who are now housing those on local authority social housing waiting lists. We also have landlords who are renting directly to those arriving in the country. Its a very complicated situation, good effort to Pimlico for attempting to get a grip on this fast moving picture!
Yes, you can argue that social housing tenants who are paying below market rents are getting an implied subsidy from the rest of society. However, as I pointed out in a comment on an earlier article, this doesn’t just apply to social housing tenants, does it? We don’t have a 100% Land Value Tax in this country. We allow people to occupy land without paying the full rental value of that land. Therefore anyone who owns a property is getting an implied subsidy from the rest of society (although if you’ve got a mortgage, much of the benefit of that subsidy is going to the bank). Why should we only be concerned with the subsidy given to social housing tenants?
If you really are going to kick people out of social housing, the fiscally and economically rational thing to do is not to sell off the properties, but to rent them out at market rates!
Great as always.
Good to see this noted by Stian Westlake chair of the ESRC
>it is only the most recent arrivals who receive lower subsidies per working age person than those born here, reflecting that there are still some effects of NRPF conditions in limiting access to social housing.
This is a bit of a hand-wave really - 'only the most recent arrivals'.
Since 2010 according to the data presented above is not merely 'only the most recent arrivals'.
That's 15 years of policy. If social housing is indeed sticky, ignoring 15 years of recent policy in favor of policies nearly two decades ago seems strange.
And surely having half the subsidy per working age person despite being disproportionately based in London is also something that needs to be taken into account?
And the argument about not paying market rent being a subsidy strikes a little hollow. Everyone who doesn't pay market rent is theory getting a subsidy - someone paying a mortgage is getting a subsidy as most mortgages tend to be lower than market rent.
In addition, there is a methodology in this data that I'd be curious to hear more about. The article talks about the household head being foreign-born - is that the same as a foreign household?!
For example, if a wife was born in the UK and the husband is foreign-born but they claim social housing as the wife is a citizen, would they count as a foreign-household in this data that this article is presenting or as a native household?
This would surely over-estimate costs if you're assigning all of those costs to the 'foreign' head as opposed to the spouse/partner who is not foreign-born? If this is the case, one would expect any reasonable piece to separate out this or account for this?
Some good questions from Ro re methodology, however comparing people who pay mortgages ( where the tax payer contributes nothing) with social housing where the tax payer either contributes with benefits and or subsidised rent is not a fair comparison. We have housing associations and council housing here,,but we also have PRS houses rented out to large rental companies like Serco, who are now housing those on local authority social housing waiting lists. We also have landlords who are renting directly to those arriving in the country. Its a very complicated situation, good effort to Pimlico for attempting to get a grip on this fast moving picture!
Yes, you can argue that social housing tenants who are paying below market rents are getting an implied subsidy from the rest of society. However, as I pointed out in a comment on an earlier article, this doesn’t just apply to social housing tenants, does it? We don’t have a 100% Land Value Tax in this country. We allow people to occupy land without paying the full rental value of that land. Therefore anyone who owns a property is getting an implied subsidy from the rest of society (although if you’ve got a mortgage, much of the benefit of that subsidy is going to the bank). Why should we only be concerned with the subsidy given to social housing tenants?
If you really are going to kick people out of social housing, the fiscally and economically rational thing to do is not to sell off the properties, but to rent them out at market rates!