75 Grand Discount....Right to buy is back...........

Neverland

leveller2911 wrote: »

...
Well if you carry your arguement through then the Water rates you and I pay are subsidised due to the fact that any rise is capped by Central Goverment.Given this fact why should you/I not pay far more in Water rates? and Gas/Electric?......

...

I'm sure you will choose to ignore the content of the above post because it doesn't fit your thinking.......;)

Nope?

Its natural that businesses try to form cartels and monopolies to allow them to charge what they like. One of the most useful things governments can do for their citizens is stop that kind of price gouging

That rabid communist Adam Smith said pretty much the same thing 100s of years ago

On a less intellectual level I hate people taking the **** with tax payers money at both ends of the income scale

smiales

Just read through this thread and do you know what, I do not believe that anyone who had the opportunity to buy under the new RTB scheme wouldn't, get real people and be honest.

I despise renting and may have an opportunity to buy through this scheme. I need a home, it may turn out to be a great deal, hell long term I might benefit. So I will take the opportunity if I can.

We both work full time on decent money, we claim nothing, live with parents and have had a hell of a time over the last few years financially. Do any of you know the feeling of not having a chance to own your own home after losing one in the past, can you even begin to imagine the feeling?

Get over yourselves, if you had the chance you would do it. My want for a family home far outweighs my morals. Yes WANT, I WANT a home - how dare I!

As someone else mentioned these houses are generally in disrepair, in less desirable area's and aren't the most attractive houses but I'd rather that than pay off someone elses mortgage by renting and not knowing how long I had before I had to move again. I, like many people want stability in my life.

In ten years time yes I might sell up and make some money, or rent the house out. The way most people do well in the housing market is generally through luck, opportunity or timing - or a combination of all three. Maybe this is the time for some people to have their chance.

Sorry if that was a big rant but this thread has p***ed me off. It reeks of jealousy. Life isn't fair, you're all adults so you should know that!

ILW

As a taxpayer, I feel that I own a share of the public assets. I do object to them being sold off a below market value to a few people who have done nothing to deserve the discount.

smiales

ILW wrote: »

As a taxpayer, I feel that I own a share of the public assets. I do object to them being sold off a below market value to a few people who have done nothing to deserve the discount.

Surely all of the purchasers will be taxpayers? Wouldn't be able to fund the purchase if not working?

ILW

smiales wrote: »

Surely all of the purchasers will be taxpayers? Wouldn't be able to fund the purchase if not working?

The way I see it is that only a lucky few taxpayers are given this opportunity, which is grossly unfair on the rest.

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

As a taxpayer, I feel that I own a share of the public assets. I do object to them being sold off a below market value to a few people who have done nothing to deserve the discount.

So just to clarify, your against the Council Right to buy scheme ,not the Housing Association Right to aquire scheme?..

Personally I'm against both but if given the chance to buy mine on the RTA scheme I would. I don't think Social housing should be sold off at all unless a new house is built to replace every one sold.

The thing is under the RTA sheme the taxpayer (you and I) do not lose any money at all. If fact if house prices rise then the taxpayers would make money,quite a lot of money in fact.

ILW

No problem with selling off public property, as long as it is sold at market value. It is the discounts I have a problem with.

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

No problem with selling off public property, as long as it is sold at market value. It is the discounts I have a problem with.

So if all the Social Housing stock is sold off a full market value where are all the low paid workers going to live?.

Is there not a moral obligation to assist the low paid? or is it a case that the National Minimum wage will need to double so that people can afford to have a roof over their heads?.

Or maybe you like the idea of Indian style slum housing springing up everywhere..;) I'm all for people paying their way but having no Social Housing is a recipe for disaster and a huge backward step.

If Private rents were affordable it would be a huge step forward.....

luvpump

how long do you have to a council tennat to qualify ?

ILW

leveller2911 wrote: »

So if all the Social Housing stock is sold off a full market value where are all the low paid workers going to live?.

Is there not a moral obligation to assist the low paid? or is it a case that the National Minimum wage will need to double so that people can afford to have a roof over their heads?.

Or maybe you like the idea of Indian style slum housing springing up everywhere..;) I'm all for people paying their way but having no Social Housing is a recipe for disaster and a huge backward step.

If Private rents were affordable it would be a huge step forward.....

If sold at full market value, the cash could build more social housing. The discounting does not address any of the problems you refer to.