The End of Social Housing for Life

suburbanwifey

ceridwen wrote: »

Well - I was being a bit cautious about saying "More people means more houses means less countryside:eek:" - but it is a very fair point to make.

I understand where you are coming from re the idea of "forcing" landlords to charge less rent - but there is a snag to that - ie "The law of unintended consequences". In this case it would manifest as many landlords deciding to sell their BTL properties - as they wouldnt be able to get as much income from them as they had planned for. Though that would then lead to extra properties coming onto the market - so house prices might come down...:think:.

Hmmm...goes back to pondering the fact that I foresee "shanty towns"/increase in squatting springing up in Britain in a couple of years time (ie from us ...not just illegals from elsewhere...).

Very good point indeed and as I am a property owner, I do not want this....erm...it appears whichever way it goes there are snags and I agree, shanty towns are a real fear for the future....back to too many people to have to house isn't it

chris_m

ceridwen wrote: »

The other thing is that a safeguard will be necessary to prevent anyone else getting access to this information - ie the information would need destroying the second it had been "checked over". I would be willing to bet that the information will be available in actual fact for anyone else that can plead an interest in looking at it.

That's what the Data Protection Act is for - in particular Principles 2 and 5, topped up by principle 7.

Shakethedisease

That's what the Data Protection Act is for - in particular Principles 2 and 5, topped up by principle 7.

I read a little while back they were getting credit reference agencies in to check finances for taxation purposes (tax evasion/avoidance) etc .. they might perhaps do it through this ?

halight

vivatifosi wrote: »

But why should a council tenancy, of which there are far too few according to need, be more secure than owning a home with a mortgage? It doesn't make any sense.

Hit the nail on the head there i think!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yes it would, but enough of our beautiful countryside has been destroyed by building more and more houses to house the mass of immigrants and the single-parent (have yet another baby, more benefit!) culture we have here.

Just to counter that rant with a few facts.....

Only 6% of the UK is built on. 94% is completely undeveloped.

Immigrants only account for a minority of population growth. The fact is the UK is also in the middle of a baby boom and people are living longer. Also fewer UK nationals are emigrating, and more are returning from overseas.

Finally population growth is urgently needed to counterbalance the aging demographics.

Our pensions and care system is managable when we have one OAP for every four taxpaying workers, but would collapse completely if we only had one taxpaying worker for every four OAP's.

So unless you think forced euthanasia is the way forward, then we need to grow and grow quickly.

How about the Govt. stop landlords ripping people off by charging ludicrous rents when a lot of people don't earn enough to pay them (minimum wage rates are not a living wage) by forcing them to charge lower rents and give more secure tenancies? like 2 years minimum....then all these people wouldn't be on waiting lists, they would be able to afford to rent privately.

And where do you think they'd be housed?

The reason rents are high is because of a housing shortage.

The market rations limited supply through price.

If you force down the rents, the market must ration limited supply through other means......

Like the 35 year waiting lists for council houses.;)

So your proposal would not help at all...... You'd just replace one waiting list with another.

Its a nice dream more houses being build, but we are a small country, we can only hold so many houses...

As stated earlier. Only 6% of land is built on. There's plenty of room.

And building more houses is the only way rents and house prices can be kept down in the long term.

As it happens, we know exactly how many houses you'd need to build to eliminate the current shortage and keep up with population growth, which would then keep house prices and rents at pretty much todays levels moving forwards.

About 3 million more houses in the next 10 years would do the trick....

Chances of it happening? Zero.

how about less babies (unless they can afford them and don't rely on benefits to support them) to grow up to need houses? much better idea.

And who do you think will pay your pension?

As it stands today, the money I contribute pays my parents and grandparents pensions. The pension I take is paid by my children and grandchildren.

If there are not enough children and grandchildren to pay the pensions and care of the elderly, society collapses.

Is that a price worth paying for an anti-immigrant philosophy?

ceridwen

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just to counter that rant with a few facts.....

Only 6% of the UK is built on. 94% is completely undeveloped.

Immigrants only account for a minority of population growth. The fact is the UK is also in the middle of a baby boom and people are living longer. Also fewer UK nationals are emigrating, and more are returning from overseas.

Finally population growth is urgently needed to counterbalance the aging demographics.

Our pensions and care system is managable when we have one OAP for every four taxpaying workers, but would collapse completely if we only had one taxpaying worker for every four OAP's.

So unless you think forced euthanasia is the way forward, then we need to grow and grow quickly.



And where do you think they'd be housed?

The reason rents are high is because of a housing shortage.

The market rations limited supply through price.

If you force down the rents, the market must ration limited supply through other means......

Like the 35 year waiting lists for council houses.;)

So your proposal would not help at all...... You'd just replace one waiting list with another.





And who do you think will pay your pension?

As it stands today, the money I contribute pays my parents and grandparents pensions. The pension I take is paid by my children and grandchildren.

If there are not enough children and grandchildren to pay the pensions and care of the elderly, society collapses.

Is that a price worth paying for an anti-immigrant philosophy?

Actually - from memory - I read during the week that immigration is accounting for 56% of our population growth.

If land is "undeveloped" then its probably so for a good reason - eg its farmland (therefore necessary to produce our food) or "amenity land" (therefore necessary so that we have some countryside to visit) or it just plain isnt sensible to develop there (eg flood plains). I can certainly think instantly of flood plains that have been built on - because the demand for housing is so high in some areas.

People want to be where they want to be - and thats not likely to be somewhere in the wilds of Scotland for instance. Most people have to take account of where the jobs are for instance and few people will move from an area with jobs to one where jobs are few and far between. Thus there are particular areas of the country that are far too densely populated (much of England for instance).

The argument too about "who would care for the elderly?" does tend to presuppose that becoming elderly automatically means one needs caring :cool:. Many wont need any care - and, of those that do, many will one way or another refuse to accept it.

I wont even go into that "circular" argument about pensions - being very proud of the fact that I personally have made sure of a manageable pension for myself:D:T - some of us do you know...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually - from memory - I read during the week that immigration is accounting for 56% of our population growth.

From memory I thought it was 48%, but whatever, close enough.

It's actually far more cost effective to use working age immigrants to grow society anyway, as we don't pay for their childhood and education.

If land is "undeveloped" then its probably so for a good reason - eg its farmland (therefore necessary to produce our food) or "amenity land" (therefore necessary so that we have some countryside to visit) or it just plain isnt sensible to develop there (eg flood plains). I can certainly think instantly of flood plains that have been built on - because the demand for housing is so high in some areas.

People want to be where they want to be - and thats not likely to be somewhere in the wilds of Scotland for instance. Most people have to take account of where the jobs are for instance and few people will move from an area with jobs to one where jobs are few and far between. Thus there are particular areas of the country that are far too densely populated (much of England for instance).

The point remains that 94% of the country is undeveloped. Like it or not, building on some of that 94% is inevitable.

The argument too about "who would care for the elderly?" does tend to presuppose that becoming elderly automatically means one needs caring :cool:. Many wont need any care - and, of those that do, many will one way or another refuse to accept it.

Actually, I'm more saying who will pay for their care.

I wont even go into that "circular" argument about pensions - being very proud of the fact that I personally have made sure of a manageable pension for myself:D:T - some of us do you know...

Indeed. My pension provisions are just fine. But as we all know, most people's aren't.

There is a 4 trillion pound pension deficit in society, and that will only get bigger if the economy shrinks because we have less people living here, and less workers contributing.

PasturesNew

ceridwen wrote: »

I knew that full mortgage interest for however much I needed to have for however long I needed to have it would be paid by the DWP (DHSS as was then...) - so I didnt have to worry about losing my home at all.

...
As I understand it - the current system doesnt start paying mortgage interest until one has been unemployed for a while (13 weeks??) and limits the amount thats payable. I think, beyond that, there might be a time limit as to how long they will pay it for????
I would really hate/be scared of the amount of insecurity I would have about my mortgage if I were to take one on now:eek:.

It used to be 39 weeks (9 months) before they'd pay out when I took my mortgage out - so the option was to cover that gap with an insurance policy, except the small print in the insurance policies meant I wouldn't have been able to claim as I didn't hit their criteria.

To claim on most insurance policies you had to have been: employed, full-time, for 6 months prior to making a claim.

You also had to keep up your insurance policy during the 39 weeks, in order to attempt a pay out.

When I don't work, I turn immediately to temping/anything to bring money in - therefore invalidating the potential of a policy immediately and for many months/years thereafter.

I've therefore always known that "I was on my own" from day 1. That's why I've turned into an uber-cautious person.

cootambear

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I don't agree with this at all. I don't have kids and I don't live in a council house by the way, I live in a private house that I bought!

Private rentals are vastly over-charged, when I look at rental prices I cringe. I would not pay the prices landlords charge to live in their houses, lining his pocket, paying his mortgage, investing for him.

True, many cannot get onto the property ladder nowadays, houses are way too expensive (gone the same way as rents, they both outstrip average incomes) and mortgages are are incredibly hard to get nowadays, I KNOW this, before you all start on me...

For this very reason, tenancies in council or housing association houses should remain secure! It should be a tenancy for life. Let's be frank, they are the only people who are secure in our country. People with mortgages can lose their job, then they now don't get enough mortgage benefit to even cover the interest, they lose their home....to end up having to rent in a house that probably costs more to rent than their mortgage was - so they get a portion of their rent paid by the council - but NOW, they are reducing that benefit too....even unemployed people on job seekers will not get enough to pay their full rent.

Private rentals are usually for 6 month tenancies, you can be kicked out with 2 months notice at any time during that 6 months - if the Govt. wants everyone in private rentals, maybe they should make it law that landlords offer 2 year tenancies?

Imagine the costs of moving every 6 months, you can't settle, you can't build a life, you can't make friends. You may not get a house near to your job so more of your income would go on travel.

I think council house tenancies should be for life. Those people who have lived there all their lives, their kids have left home etc, should not be forced onto an over-priced private rental market offering no security of tenancy and looming poverty.

I just think a lot of people in private rentals would give their right arms (figuratively speaking) for a council tenancy and are jealous, period.

Leave council tenants alone, they have paid their rent for years (a lot do work and don't claim benefits) and if their standard of living increases over the years due to lower rents, security and working hard, they have earned that right.

You and the Govt. want to take away what little security these people have and leave them like the majority, stuffed. Cannot afford to buy a house yet they are expected to pay the same as a mortgage would cost or even more to rent from a private landlord.

Private landlords must be rubbing their hands in glee, they'll be running this country soon! everybody is putting all the cards in their hands.

I feel deeply sorry for council tenants and the low paid, they are being stuffed from every direction.

Utterly. The working man is paying for the greed of the rich. Or more scientifically, wages and services are being driven down to attempt to bolster the falling rate of profit. https://www.po.org.ar

drc

This should apply to all tenants, not just new ones.

There are cases of millionaire lottery winners still living in their subsidised council homes;

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=511493&in_page_id=2

and very highly paid businessmen and women living in them.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23426025-kens-117000-aide-lives-in-90pw-council-house.do

Why should they get subsidised housing when they can afford to pay more than a lot of people who don't live in council homes and have to pay full rent.