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!
Tory council leader believes ‘basic salary’ is 80k
Comments
-
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
If the government build a lot of houses and rented them on the open market, then yes the price of property and of rentals would fall.
Just like it would if the government allowed the private sector to build sufficient property without levies and extra charges.
However, if they let them out below the then market price, then it would be correct to say they were subsidised.0 -
However, if they let them out below the then market price, then it would be correct to say they were subsidised.
You are purposely not understanding the business model.
affordable housing was an ambition during the construction and life of earning potential of the home.
the low price was a part of the plan of the whole system.
Unlike the present private rental system which is single faceted and unbelievably short term ..Lots of really good long term business models can have a whole range of social benefits and still be very profitable.
I can assure you that however hard you argue your case ...Your greedy short term plans for taking cash off the government by denying normal people an affordable home (And that is exactly what buy to let landlords indirectly cause ) has not 1% the social benefit than a structured long term social housing program.0 -
Isn't profit from buy to let taxed and therefore contributing to the housing benefit bill?0
-
You are purposely not understanding the business model.
affordable housing was an ambition during the construction and life of earning potential of the home.
the low price was a part of the plan of the whole system.
Unlike the present private rental system which is single faceted and unbelievably short term ..Lots of really good long term business models can have a whole range of social benefits and still be very profitable.
I can assure you that however hard you argue your case ...Your greedy short term plans for taking cash off the government by denying normal people an affordable home (And that is exactly what buy to let landlords indirectly cause ) has not 1% the social benefit than a structured long term social housing program.
social subsidised housing does enormous harm to its residents as it puts them in ghettos, limits their social and geographical mobility, limits their work options, creates a dependency culture, limits personal initiatives and discriminates against many of the poor and has many other faults too.0 -
social subsidised housing does enormous harm to its residents as it puts them in ghettos, limits their social and geographical mobility, limits their work options, creates a dependency culture, limits personal initiatives and discriminates against many of the poor and has many other faults too.
That wasn't the case in the 60s and 70s and there is no reason why it has to be now.0 -
social subsidised housing does enormous harm to its residents as it puts them in ghettos, limits their social and geographical mobility, limits their work options, creates a dependency culture, limits personal initiatives and discriminates against many of the poor and has many other faults too.
0 -
social subsidised housing does enormous harm to its residents as it puts them in ghettos, limits their social and geographical mobility, limits their work options, creates a dependency culture, limits personal initiatives and discriminates against many of the poor and has many other faults too.
Interesting that the original council housing was aspired to and individuals vetted before they were granted them and many paid full rent.
The RTB and lack of sizeable build thereafter ended up with the concentration into the ghettos (homes to many) that you describe. The limit to social mobility is still there with HB. The dependency culture is still there. Shoving people in hostels and run down B&Bs discrimates and denegrates the poor.
There will always be a need for supported accommodation. A disparate band of BTLs is a tactical response that has become de facto policy. It is an I'll thought out response and comes from running policy on empty.
The cost will continue to escalate."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 that the original council housing was aspired to and individuals vetted before they were granted them and many paid full rent.
The RTB and lack of sizeable build thereafter ended up with the concentration into the ghettos (homes to many) that you describe. The limit to social mobility is still there with HB. The dependency culture is still there. Shoving people in hostels and run down B&Bs discrimates and denegrates the poor.
There will always be a need for supported accommodation. A disparate band of BTLs is a tactical response that has become de facto policy. It is an I'll thought out response and comes from running policy on empty.
The cost will continue to escalate.
the criteria for council housing were political decisions
the RTB didn't reduce the number of houses
B&B etc is caused by lack of sufficient properties plus an ill thought out commitment to spend money on housing people at a higher standard than was actually available
the high costs are a result of
- the shortage of housing
- a mad system that provides better housing to people on benefits compared to people who work and pay their own way
the costs can be reduced if the stupid rules about housing 'social' tenants were similar to normal people paying their own way.
we need to reduce the impediments to building more properties0
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
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards