Tory council leader believes ‘basic salary’ is 80k

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So the government building "state controlled" (your words) property would not be more housing? Wouldn't poor people being housed be "subsidiising" them?

There is no reason why "state controlled" housing couldn't be built to equally high standards or even better standards.

More housing would be built if the government didn't prevent them being built by their planning rules, the extra costs on new build houses and their rules on mortgage lending.

But yes, of course government can build high quality housing at a high price

the government could run high quality food shops at a high price
the government could run high quality clothes shops at a high price


and they could subsidise them all too

however my view is that poor people should be subsidised and not property or food or clothes shops.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

.....There is no reason why "state controlled" housing couldn't be built to equally high standards or even better standards.

Any 'expertise' remaining within the government (central or local) must be almost zero by now. So how come you think they could rent a few JCB's and do as good a job as Persimmon, and at the same cost [perhaps without the profit]?

The answer is that it is a ludicrous idea. All they could do is get Persimmon (or one of the others) to do it for them, which would deflect them from doing it on their own account anyway.

In the 'good old days' they built millions of council houses. Every single one of them subsidised. Whether the occupier had money or not. Given that a pretty large constituency now don't just get 'subsidised' housing but 'free' housing, thanks to Brother Brown, I just can't see why we would want to continue paying all that, plus a general hidden subsidy for all the others who live there.

We need simply to just get the damned houses built. By those best able to do it. Making sure that some of them are 'basic'. Then subsidise whichever tenants might qualify.

The latter point about subsidy needs further debate but at least it is capable of proper 'targetting'.

I fully agree with ideas currently floating around that legal "caps" should be put on benefits. So the taxpayer can effectively say we will spend £120 billion on Housing Subsidies of all forms next year, and not a penny more.... then work out what that means. e.g. criteria for housing benefit are "as follows" [a new sliding scale]. All council/HA properties to increase 'full' rent to market value... all calculated to hit £120 billion and no more.

I don't always agree with Clappers, but I think he's absolutely right. Subsidise the person and not the commodity he wishes to purchase, whether that be food, energy, clothing, or rent.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Any 'expertise' remaining within the government (central or local) must be almost zero by now. So how come you think they could rent a few JCB's and do as good a job as Persimmon, and at the same cost [perhaps without the profit]?

The answer is that it is a ludicrous idea. All they could do is get Persimmon (or one of the others) to do it for them, which would deflect them from doing it on their own account anyway.

.

If Persimmion or whoever haven't got the capacity to deliver then they haven't got the capacity to deliver on their own or targeted by the state.

If there was a will to upscale backed by a robust plan and demand schedule and finance then resourcing would be found, trained and put in place.

I am sure that if the government had directed money directly to house building during the slump years the developers would have been quite happy to build at near cost to keep their finances turning and allow them to maximise the margins available from private sales. It would also have provided much needed jobs which would have have actually produced something out of the "benefits" diverted rather than more net consumption from overseas with nothing to show for it.

There will always be a need for subsidised housing regardless of how demand is met or paid for and it is growing. The private sector build route has never provided sufficient properties and is unlikely to.

If prudent lending rules are applied and enforced there would simply be a limit to the number of people that could afford to borrow. We could of course provide guaranteed funds to pursue the US sub prime model.

Arguably BTL would fill some of the gap the question is then is it really any more efficient to fund via disparate landlords than through central functions £ for £ do we get, like for like, more accommodation? Can we keep on funding an escalating HB bill?

Most posters on here encourage buy your own property, don't rent , it is wasted money. Yet it seems it is OK for the government to effectively rent to fulfil it's obligations rather than invest in an asset base.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

More housing would be built if the government didn't prevent them being built by their planning rules, the extra costs on new build houses and their rules on mortgage lending.

But yes, of course government can build high quality housing at a high price


however my view is that poor people should be subsidised and not property or food or clothes shops.

I don't see what clothes and food shops have got to do with housing.

If planning rules were relaxed and the value of houses plummeted, so that they were affordable by all what would happen to the banking system? Having constructed a house of cards it generally isn't a good idea to remove cards from the base layer.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I don't see what clothes and food shops have got to do with housing.

If planning rules were relaxed and the value of houses plummeted, so that they were affordable by all what would happen to the banking system? Having constructed a house of cards it generally isn't a good idea to remove cards from the base layer.

We need more housing in some areas of the UK.
The demand for housing is well founded and unlikely to decline.

I wouldn't expect house price to plummet if there were an expansion of supply but maybe decline a little or simply stop rising.

Banks wouldn't be much affected by modest fall in prices as it is the level of mortgage defaults that is the primary financial factor from a banking point of view.

Ghettos of social housing are not the answer to better housing conditions.
Where necessary, it is people that should be subsidised whether they need housing, food, clothing etc and not the products themselves.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

.....There will always be a need for subsidised housing regardless of how demand is met or paid for and it is growing. The private sector build route has never provided sufficient properties and is unlikely to....

The 'need' will increase infinitely along with the degree to which it is satisfied. It must be rationed just as the NHS is because we can't afford it. NHS rations mainly by 'time/waiting'. Housing must be rationed by prioritisation and 'real' need.

Write down all so-called 'civilised' countries and rank them by benefits generosity. UK would be come at or near the top. Now write down the same list of countries and rank them by "misery" as measured by all the whinging about 'low benefits', 'hardship', 'poverty'...... And you would get a similar list.

Does this not tell you anything?

John_Pierpoint

The only problem with subsidising the work-less is that the marginal rate of tax is a real disincentive to pulling oneself up by ones boot straps.

As public subsidy is a hand up not a hand out, perhaps all benefits should be subject to an automatic cut yearly, if not reapplied for with real evidence of self improvement and job search in the previous 12 months?

globalds

This old straw man of council housing being subsidised is ludicrous.

The business model has different priorities and is run over a much larger time frame, therefore any discounts on rental models such as we have now would not be a subsidy. It is the real costing and if enough of these houses are allowed to compete in the rental market they will bring market rates down to a point that they no longer appear as subsidised ..they create a new and as real market rate for rental.

It would mean that most Landlords screwing the tenant and government out of cash today would have to reconsider there business model ..not unheard of.

But don't defend one business model by calling another one that is a well tried and trusted and very profitable model as some kind of subsidy ..foolish talk from vested interests ..makes me sick

JencParker

gazter wrote: »

Bojo got into Eton on a scholarship

Doesn't mean anything - scholarships are available to all, including the wealthy - indeed many children on scholarships are from wealthy families. Bursaries are for those on lower incomes.

JencParker

AndyGuil wrote: »

That is quite a normal salary in London

While it may not be uncommon there are many, many who earn less than half that amount in London.

Household income on the other hand is easily there.

Depends on what qualifies as 'household'. What about single people? not everyone is married or in a relationship