Did we want to reduce economic differences in a simple way? Then we were able to ensure that a generous housing allowance was paid to most ordinary low- and middle-income earners. With a normal/high cost of living and a monthly salary of no more than 30 before tax as a single person, you would receive a full allowance. If you are married, cohabiting, have one or more children, the housing allowance must be affected upwards or downwards in a reasonable way. These conditions must be price and wage index regulated. The government must automatically correct them with inflation.
Housing allowance must not be a debt trap
It would be important if we calculated the housing allowance one year at a time but on a monthly basis. In the event of an increase in income, you would be liable at most from the month and day you report the change in income. If you report the change in time, you should avoid repayment claims. The fact that the housing allowance has been made impossible to reach and a debt trap for many, is an important part behind the fact that many are getting poorer and evicted, while a few are getting richer and richer.
Important to counteract the divides in capitalism
Even in periods when Sweden had full employment, many have had low wages and high housing costs. A combination of housing allowance and building support is crucial to address the gaps. Inequality constantly arises in the capitalist system. The housing allowance and the housing supplement for disabled and old-age pensioners are an important tool for reducing financial gaps and ensuring that all citizens have access to a decent home.
A successful social housing policy also requires one subsidized construction policy, where the state plays an active role in supporting and promoting the construction of affordable housing. Removing state aid for construction was a mistake by the mainly bourgeois governments that did this. This has made it more difficult for many to find affordable housing, thus further widening the gaps.
We need a housing policy that enables housing for all social groups, regardless of their economic conditions. By combining housing grants for those who need financial support with strong building support to increase access to affordable housing, we can take an important step towards reducing economic gaps and promoting a fairer society.
Citizens who feel better function better
Research shows that if people can afford a reasonable home and a reasonable level of consumption reduces their mental illness significantly or does not occur. This is especially important in childhood. If more people felt well, more people would also work, study and function better socially in society. Apart from the fact that they themselves and their relatives would be happier.
Deductions no better than contributions
At the same time, the wealthy have various deductions and especially the interest deduction, which is a contribution that reduces the housing costs and loan costs of middle-class and upper-class homeowners by several thousand per month. Why are we so skeptical when the poor, i.e. most of us, should receive subsidies while we are so positive about interest deductions, RUT and ROT for the rich? The rich people's deduction is just another word for allowance.
More housing and better housing allowances would benefit the economy
In the article below, I talk about how we could afford to greatly improve the housing allowance and for pensioners and disabled pensioners the housing supplement. This would also increase employment and through more people employed in construction and more people receiving reduced monthly costs via the housing allowance, consumption and thus many different shops and companies will be stimulated. The consumption of the poor has less environmental impact than the consumption of the richest 1-10%.
No government deficits – society's unnecessary straitjacket
Building housing will always be so expensive and necessary that the state needs to gather society's resources through both construction aid and housing allowance so that low- and middle-income earners can afford to live decently and have a tolerable life. Reintroduce the state building aid!
At the same time, Gustav Möller's old principle that stigmatizing the poor is not a good idea applies. Not least because it is difficult to convince the middle class that tax money should go exclusively to the poor, and thus difficult to push through politically.
So it is probably better to subsidize housing construction. According to Jöran Lindvall, it would not cost more than the Rot deduction, see https://www.svd.se/a/e1e383c3-adb3-4a08-bd50-8ad912548b44/snart-maste-sverige-bygga-for-de-fattigaste.
With more housing on the market, the price of these should reasonably fall. Perhaps so far that even a poor pensioner can afford them.
The rich get their deductions, then the poor can get housing allowance. The ideal is of course for the state to subsidize housing construction, but I still believe that a favorable housing allowance that is difficult to be liable for repayment is needed as a supplement.
One idea could be to cancel route, root and housing allowance and instead give everyone a general citizen's allowance of 5000 per month alongside salary, unemployment insurance, sickness benefit, sickness allowance, old-age pension, annuity and workers' compensation.
My problem is otherwise the feasibility in the long term. Möller advocated general money and was against special grants to the poor for three reasons
- it branded and shamed the poor (he had his own experiences of this as a child)
- it gave undue power to petty bureaucrats to say yes or no (cf. FK)
- it was difficult to justify to those who did not receive any grants, i.e. the majority of citizens; therefore difficult to maintain in the long run.
Therefore, I believe more in interest rate subsidies for construction, which increases construction and drives down rents and apartment prices via increased supply.
There is another reason not to subsidize rents – it pours more money into the loan bubble that keeps house prices grotesquely high.
Per Lindvall develops on https://www.bostadspolitik.se/2021/07/21/vi-har-skapat-ett-drivhus-for-insiders/ why this not only embitters class society but is also a threat to the entire economy. It is actually necessary to put many more homes on the market to puncture the inflated prices and create a buyer's market for once.
Nothing is being built today. It wont pay off". There are many ways to approach this, Gemensam Välfärd investigates some of them http://gemensamvalfard.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bygg-bort-bostadsbristen-version2.pdf.
I think that housing subsidies in combination with a huge increase in housing construction could work. Alternatively, a citizen's salary as a supplement to regular contributions and social insurance. After all, most have not received their share of the companies' productivity increases since the 1970s. Then the state could compensate the citizens for the lack of wage increase with a contribution of 3000 per month which followed the wage and price index development.
Rename it to the general housing deduction as compensation for the fact that rental property is penally taxed in comparison to owned housing. Otherwise brilliant
Deduction is fine
Contributions are ugly
Thank you honey!