Right to Buy???

squinty

Council rents are NOT subsidised.

There is a national scheme where rents are set by a government formula, and there is another formula to take account of managment costs, repairs etc. If the difference is positive this is paid to government, if it is negative the council recieve funding from government. Some councils (esp London Boroughs and large metropolitans) do benefit from this, but the majority do not. The net result of this is that council tenants are taxed. So frankly you are being subsidised by council tenants.

pawpurrs

You sound like a really nice bloke, but I dont think anyone should have the right to buy, at a subsisidised market value, that means effectively they get given back all the low rent they have paid, and I would even go further to say if they can afford to buy then, they shouldnt even be allowed to continue to rent either :eek:
In my humble opinion, HA or council houses should be for those in need, like you were at the start of the tennancy, now you both work, and your income is such that you could afford to privatley rent, so I would say that means testing should occur on an annual basis, rarher like tax credits, and if your circumstances change, the HA house, should be made available for some one in greater need.
Its not a personal thing, but how I think they should be run, obviously if there was a right to buy at a substanial discount then anyone would be mad not to take it, but thats just the way I see it should be done, and I am sure many would disagree with me.

Running_Horse

pawpurrs wrote: »

so I would say that means testing should occur on an annual basis, rarher like tax credits, and if your circumstances change, the HA house, should be made available for some one in greater need.

Except that there would then be a disincentive for people to work hard and get on in life. Worse, many would happily sit on benefits forever. I personally would give social houising priority to those who don't get pregnant and do work, however low the wage.

pawpurrs

Ahhhhhhhhhh but I also agree with a complete upheavel of the benefits system, those on benefits long term, who are able to work would have to work, cleaning streets, goverment work etc or not recieve any benefits. If you made them work 40 hours a week for the same amount they would soon find a job!:D

Wee_Willy_Harris

And what do we do about the army of unemployed street cleaners, government workers etc???

RobertoMoir

Chrisl wrote: »

Well the area on a whole is lovely and the only HA houses are a small few in a close where i live! Its just that my dad keeps on about getting onto the housing market! i like the house and love the area! So I take it then the tennancy I have got then is for life, but I take it when i retire I will still have to pay rent?

Do what's best for you, not what your dad thinks. I am sure he only has your best interests at heart, but he also will be looking at the situation through the lens of his own experiences, which might not include renting a good house in a good location.

If you own a house, when you retire you might not have to pay rent but you would still have to pay to maintain the house. Owning property is not the magic gateway to living somewhere and not having to pay a penny ever again the moment the mortgage is paid off.

pawpurrs

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And what do we do about the army of unemployed street cleaners, government workers etc???

Theres plenty of stuff that can be found for the LONG TERM unemloyed, I am not talking about those that have been made redundant, and are unemployed for six mths. If you have a better solution lets hear it. Or shall we just keep paying people to sit at home for years if they are fit and able to work?:p

Wee_Willy_Harris

pawpurrs wrote: »

Theres plenty of stuff that can be found for the LONG TERM unemloyed, I am not talking about those that have been made redundant, and are unemployed for six mths. If you have a better solution lets hear it. Or shall we just keep paying people to sit at home for years if they are fit and able to work?:p

I was just saying that making the unemployed do things like street cleaning will just put the street cleaner who used to do it on the dole, so I see no benefit. We currently have a shortage of jobs in this country. Those that want to work will chase the jobs that are out there. Those that don't will stay at home watching Jeremy Kyle. As unemployment is rising, I don't see the problem with leting those who don't want to work do just that, and leave the vacancies for those who DO want them.