We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council houses for fixed terms only!
Comments
-
As a matter of interest, if Fourcandles had chosen to house his family in the cheapest possible private rent he could find, would that be an issue for anyone?0
-
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »So you think all properties for sale should be advertised without a price, and those buying should be expected to pay a pre-determined amount, based on personal wealth/income, regardless of the property. An interesting proposal.
Did you take a run up for that huge leap of faith?
No what I meant was that the landlord/seller is entitled to ask for what they think they can get or feel it is worth. It's up to them. If others share their view of the price demanded then it will be sold/rented. If not, it won't.
I have read through what I originally posted, and I cannot see for the life of me how you have arrived at that suggestion.Set your goals high, and don't stop till you get there.
Bo Jackson0 -
At a local council meeting our councillor stood up and said I feel many in the room fail to understand what affordable homes are or how they are funded or allocated..0
-
wherediditallgothen wrote: »Did you take a run up for that huge leap of faith?
No what I meant was that the landlord/seller is entitled to ask for what they think they can get or feel it is worth. It's up to them. If others share their view of the price demanded then it will be sold/rented. If not, it won't.
I have read through what I originally posted, and I cannot see for the life of me how you have arrived at that suggestion.
OK. So now you appear to have some understanding of personal determination. If a person wants the best house available, they have to make a suitable payment and accept the impact on their disposable income. If, however, a person wants to preserve their disposable income, they can look at a more affordable (ie cheaper) property in order to facilitate this. ie. An individual has some control within the decisions they make regarding income.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »As a matter of interest, if Fourcandles had chosen to house his family in the cheapest possible private rent he could find, would that be an issue for anyone?
No, because that would not have been at the expense of someone with greater needs. Social housing is is a limited supply at discounted prices intended for those that cannot afford market rates.0 -
FOURCANDLES wrote: »At a local council meeting our councillor stood up and said I feel many in the room fail to understand what affordable homes are or how they are funded or allocated..
Nothing personal but they should not be allocated to those who are in probably the top 20% earnings bracket. Seems crazy.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »OK. So now you appear to have some understanding of personal determination. If a person wants the best house available, they have to make a suitable payment and accept the impact on their disposable income. If, however, a person wants to preserve their disposable income, they can look at a more affordable (ie cheaper) property in order to facilitate this. ie. An individual has some control within the decisions they make regarding income.
What has that got to do with Council housing?0 -
Do housing associations have charitable status?0
-
No, because that would not have been at the expense of someone with greater needs. Social housing is is a limited supply at discounted prices intended for those that cannot afford market rates.
Yes it would because I would have seaked a property out as the private tenant who saw the property beneath them would seek out a dear property and get the social to pick up half the bill0 -
No, because that would not have been at the expense of someone with greater needs. Social housing is is a limited supply at discounted prices intended for those that cannot afford market rates.
But surely, according to your own arguments, he could afford a more expensive place and, in renting the cheapest available, he is depriving the person who can only afford the cheapest available. Or is this about something other than rent levels?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards