Is this right?

chewmylegoff

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I wish to remove the ruling to let layabouts get a free house for life because it is wrong.

I wish to remove the ruling to let people who live in council houses stay their for life even if they are working and are capable of saving up a deposit for a house of their own, this then frees up the house and allows a new tenant to save up a house deposit easier than if they were private renting.

You get the security you need when you buy your own home.

Have you had a chance to watch that tv program i mentioned, it will clear things up for you, it will show you that i am not a liar and you may also realise that you are a bit naive.

No single mothers

No unemployed

No workers

Who exactly should be living in social housing then?

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

That was a very weak attempt at making me look like a loser, why dont you just come out and say it, i think you are a boring loser lad, see its quicker and easier.

I think all young people should shut up about the amount of money this country wastes and go and play with their ipad, is that what you are saying.

No not quite . I think there are more and more people like you who are very easily manipulated, played off and therefore distracted. This is why we are becoming a more fractured and unhappy society.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Are you saying that if somebody saves up for twenty years that they cannot get a good sized deposit together and put it down on a house, or are you saying its not worth even attempting to buy a house because its so expensive and could take 20 years to get a deposit together.

If it was going to take me 20 years to get a house deposit together i wouldnt be happy about it but i would still do it as i would want a home of my own at some point in the future.

One of my friends who is saving a deposit has been saving for around 5 years i think and he has easily got another 5 years to go but he hasnt given up as he wants to get away from the area we live in.

If i was him i would move up north, i do think it is wrong that people have to leave their home towns just so they can afford a house but if thats what it takes then i would have to do it.

Sadly people are going to be spending a lot of their lives saving up to buy their own house but thats the way it is now, we are running out of council houses and the population is increasing so in the future things are going to get even worse.

See, I would hope to see people, especialy younger - not being ageist, but the traditionally more radical and passionate - people being able to take an objective view and realise this kind of perspective which is taken on board by so many without question, is so blatantly not right.

Somethings gone wrong. But seems no-one wants to find out realy what that is. Just want to be spoonfed easy answers. Its the 'workshy scum', its the 'ratty single mums' its the 'immigrants'. The newspaper said so. My mate said so.
Of course, most of them aren't bothered what you think, as they're one way or another being pacified by the systems. I could go on but I sense to most this is now verging on having a paranoia vibe .

But just think, between your anonymous internet whinging, their quiet scrounging.... what else is going on? Are there only the likes of 'you' and the likes of 'them' in the country? Whos pulling the strings? Who is -'scuse the pun- really benefitting?

BTW, I'm probably not far off your age. And I don't have a i-pad

PasturesNew

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387036/Some-people-villa-Spain-Councils-set-hike-rents-wealthy-social-housing-tenants.html

"Some of these people have Villas in Spain"

Conservative-led Westminster Council has asked Government for new powers to introduce a sliding scale which would link social housing rents to incomes.

The move comes after the council found it had 2,200 social housing tenants earning more than £50,000-a-year, and more than 200 on over £100,000.

Many of those on £100,000 or more were paying rents of £97-a-week for a one bedroom flat, or £110-a-week for a two bedroom place, said Mrs Roe.

She said a new formula should be applied which would see tenants paying 35 to 40 per cent of their net income on accomodation, the national average.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I wish to remove the ruling to let layabouts get a free house for life because it is wrong.

I wish to remove the ruling to let people who live in council houses stay their for life even if they are working and are capable of saving up a deposit for a house of their own, this then frees up the house and allows a new tenant to save up a house deposit easier than if they were private renting.

You get the security you need when you buy your own home.

Have you had a chance to watch that tv program i mentioned, it will clear things up for you, it will show you that i am not a liar and you may also realise that you are a bit naive.

OK then, if it's the lowest common denominator you want, let's remove security for everyone, including those selfish owner occs who insist on living in a house far too big for their immediate needs. Lets make them sell up, and if they don't then we slap a compulsory purchase on them at 20% below market value. That would get the housing market moving again. Might even be to your advantage as a FTB to get houseprices moving towards a more realistic level.

chewmylegoff

PasturesNew wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387036/Some-people-villa-Spain-Councils-set-hike-rents-wealthy-social-housing-tenants.html

"Some of these people have Villas in Spain"

Seems a decent enough idea to me, as it would incentivise people to move on of their own accord when they reached the point where they would actually be better off sorting themselves out. Could be administered through the PAYE system as well.

Of course, bit trickier for the self employed.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Yes so if they were not paying this £400 a month rent they could save it towards a house deposit, thats nearly 5k a year to put towards a house deposit.

And who pays the housing provider for the upkeep, new builds, regeneration, modernisation etc etc etc?

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No single mothers

No unemployed

No workers

Who exactly should be living in social housing then?

Jimmy, of course. Except he doesn't even want social housing. He just wants to ensure no-one else gets it. I think he'd rather see it left empty.

ukcarper

PasturesNew wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387036/Some-people-villa-Spain-Councils-set-hike-rents-wealthy-social-housing-tenants.html

"Some of these people have Villas in Spain"

You wonder why they don't use the right to buy and get the house with a big discount.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

I am saying that there is no way someone on say £15k could buy a house in some parts of the country take my example above even at 5x salary you could only borrow £75k so if you could find a house for £250k you would need to save £175k. Not every body can move up north and if they did would they get a job. Also you need people down south to do lower paid jobs.

So where are the next generation going to live when all the council houses and private rents in their area have gone, this is the point im getting at, if people cant afford a house in their area in the future then they will have to move to an area where they can afford a house.

If they wont move to another area then what is there option.

Jimmy_31

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No single mothers

No unemployed

No workers

Who exactly should be living in social housing then?

Single mothers who end up being single by CONSTANTLY making stupid decisions should not be given a free house, they should be put into some kind of hostel and be taught the basic lessons in life.

The unemployed who are unemployed by choice should just be thrown on the streets.

Workers who take on a council house and have no intention of ever giving that house up or trying to buy their own house should be asked to leave to make way for somebody who is willing to do this.

Why do you feel the need to twist what i am saying.