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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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!
BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »What is stopping market rents being charged if the occupants are in a position to pay them?
Nothing other than politicians being genetically programmed to spend taxpayers money with ease whilst being unable to resist the urge to claim back for a kit-kat they ate on the way to a meeting.
Of course, if there was an admission that some occupants could afford to pay market rents it would raise the awkward question of why they live in housing that is allocated on the basis of need and in short supply.
You won't find a politician that will charge market rents and you'll be less likely to find one that is willing to kick out tenants who no longer need social housing.grizzly1911 wrote: »Why does RTB have to exist?
Politics again. I've never really understood why houses should be given away just because someone's managed to keep living there.grizzly1911 wrote: »If occupants are need of subsidy then that is a cost to the tax payer. Reducing the cost on the DWP cost centre is a benefit to the tax payer.
The system runs on the assumption that all social tenants should be subsidised. I honestly don't know why that that is the case but it's always been the case and seems unlikely to change.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Is the Australian model cheaper per capita then?
Costs are about the same but in the UK you've a lower chance of surviving birth but if you do there's a higher chance of dying from preventable diseases and you'll live a year longer in Australia.
Looks like better value for money.0 -
Costs are about the same but in the UK you've a lower chance of surviving birth but if you do there's a higher chance of dying from preventable diseases and you'll live a year longer in Australia.
Looks like better value for money.
Interesting observation do you have the source and evidence? Any idea by what percentage?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Nothing other than politicians being genetically programmed to spend taxpayers money with ease whilst being unable to resist the urge to claim back for a kit-kat they ate on the way to a meeting.
Of course, if there was an admission that some occupants could afford to pay market rents it would raise the awkward question of why they live in housing that is allocated on the basis of need and in short supply.
You won't find a politician that will charge market rents and you'll be less likely to find one that is willing to kick out tenants who no longer need social housing.
Politics again. I've never really understood why houses should be given away just because someone's managed to keep living there.
The system runs on the assumption that all social tenants should be subsidised. I honestly don't know why that that is the case but it's always been the case and seems unlikely to change.
So none of those points are insurmountable just historic positions and mindset.
Peoples aspirations and wants are all different. If they can afford to pay market rents it is surely up to them if they stay. Just means the return on capital will be quicker facilitating continued replenishment."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Interesting observation do you have the source and evidence? Any idea by what percentage?
Only Dr. Google.Australia has avoided the worst aspects of all-out private care, as exemplified by the US (high cost, lack of cover for the poor and chronic sick, which is only now being adjusted). It also largely escapes some features of NHS-style state-funded care (lack of choice, treatment delays, questionable quality of care).
It does well on the universally acknowledged standard of infant mortality, at 4.1 deaths per 1,000 live births (World Bank 2010). Britain records 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. Life expectancy at birth for Australians in 2009 was 81.5 years, compared to 80.05 in Britain (World Bank). It has a good record on potentially preventable deaths, which are a third lower than in UK.
Health care expenditure in Australia as a proportion of GDP was 8.7 per cent in 2009, compared to an average of 9.6 in advanced (OECD) countries but roughly comparable with Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/7898820/Expat-guide-to-Australia-health-care.html
That was 2010 - I doubt we've caught up since then0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »So none of those points are insurmountable just historic positions and mindset.
A state run company will never have to deal with competition like a private company or worry so much about going bust so there's less incentive to be efficient. However, apart from that, there's no inherent reason why state companies should be less efficient.
They just are - that's the choice of politicians - if the mindset changed then I'd be more in favour of council housing but I just can't see it happening.0 -
A state run company will never have to deal with competition like a private company or worry so much about going bust so there's less incentive to be efficient. However, apart from that, there's no inherent reason why state companies should be less efficient.
They just are - that's the choice of politicians - if the mindset changed then I'd be more in favour of council housing but I just can't see it happening.
Most social housing is now run by housing associations I can't see any reason why they can't be efficient.
Still most of this is irrelevant because no government is going to commit to the extra debt even if it could save money in the long term.0 -
Most social housing is now run by housing associations I can't see any reason why they can't be efficient.
Still most of this is irrelevant because no government is going to commit to the extra debt even if it could save money in the long term.
housing association are quasi state organisations; they do not compete in any meaningful way, their clients are nominated by local councils, most of their income comes directly from the state.
they often have very opague management structures and are accountable to no-one0 -
housing association are quasi state organisations; they do not compete in any meaningful way, their clients are nominated by local councils, most of their income comes directly from the state.
they often have very opague management structures and are accountable to no-one
Pretty much like some large corporates in reality. They may have shareholders and in some cases regulators but still create an intricate web."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
housing association are quasi state organisations; they do not compete in any meaningful way, their clients are nominated by local councils, most of their income comes directly from the state.
they often have very opague management structures and are accountable to no-one
I've noticed you have not commented on whether you think 16 years to recoup initial cost is excessive.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards