I don't know much about this. If the rent money flows back to the state, then any subsidy might be construed as the state paying itself. The amount it is paying itself would be only notional.
By way of comparison: you could say that low earners get an income tax subsidy. That is, they are charged at the 45% rate the same as everyone else, but get some of the money back to make the effective rate lower than that. Of course, this is nonsense. But all sorts of fictional flows of money could be created and then called subsidies.
I don't think it's quite the same. If you cross an income tax threshold, you lose a proportion of the extra money you earn. You don't lose any of your existing net income, as far as I am aware. But I'm not very knowledgeable about taxes.
If the suggestion is that you go from earning £29,999.99 to £30,000.00 (1p increase) and then have to fork out an extra, say, £4k in rent, well that would be silly. I can't imagine that is what is about to happen. I'm not a great a fan of the chancellor, but he must realise that is not a sensible proposal.
^^^ Yes. We shall have to wait and see what the Chancellor has to say.
Was absolutely staggered to here that so many, on decent wages, have their housing costs subsidised.
Scandalous.
The costs are only subsidized if you magic up some imaginary costs that have to be paid. Most of the building costs of this housing were paid for years ago. So the only ongoing costs in a lot of cases are maintenance costs.
Not quite the case but get the sentiment. Housing association need to make a "profit" so they can purchase more properties.
No they do not have to make a profit, all they have to do is break even.
Ok what happens if a roof needs repairing ?
Its all built in to a yearly budget, with money put to one said for emergency repairs etc.
and if not a money is put aside
as on other threads im not disagreeing butso many practicalities to overcome, and that's whats the economy is like