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
-
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »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.
In the same way that PFI is bonkers so is government funding BTL as a long term strategy for dealing with social housing needs.
Does it make sense for the government to rent property rather than invest in it's own to meet the ever present (growing?) need? As a short term solution it may make sense but we have persistent long term needs.
Healthcare can be rationed in some cases because it will not make a material difference to the prognosis or because it can be managed by alternative low cost means."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: »In the same way that PFI is bonkers so is government funding BTL as a long term strategy for dealing with social housing needs.
Does it make sense for the government to rent property rather than invest in it's own to meet the ever present (growing?) need? As a short term solution it may make sense but we have persistent long term needs.
Healthcare can be rationed in some cases because it will not make a material difference to the prognosis or because it can be managed by alternative low cost means.
The government doesn't fund BTL, it merely treats it as a business and pays HB to the standard that the government (incorrectly) sets.
It makes sense for the government to remove the barriers to building new properties by the private sector at no cost to the taxpayer.
housing demand is largely a 'want' rather than a 'need' and so costs can be reduced.
Sorry don't understand your point about healthcare0 -
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 properties
Correct RTB didn't reduce the number of houses just removed them from the social supply chain and "gave " them to the children of the tenants. The money raised from this giveaway were then used elsewhere.
Many of those on benefits do actually work and endeavour to pay their own way. They are normal people.
Not sure where your definition of normal comes from.
If the "stupid rules" were relaxed who do you think will make up the shortfall to ensure the social costs are met?
These are the escalating costs of "renting" provision."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: »Correct RTB didn't reduce the number of houses just removed them from the social supply chain and "gave " them to the children of the tenants. The money raised from this giveaway were then used elsewhere.
Many of those on benefits do actually work and endeavour to pay their own way. They are normal people.
Not sure where your definition of normal comes from.
If the "stupid rules" were relaxed who do you think will make up the shortfall to ensure the social costs are met?
These are the escalating costs of "renting" provision.
social housing can be inherited by the children
and anyway why aren't the children of social tenants allowed housing?
my definition of normal people is everyone: sadly current polices distinguish between social and normal people by making different rules and having different subsidies.
I'm suggesting that standards for social tenants should be no higher than for those people I'm not allowed to refer to.
If there are escalating costs of renting then that probably says we have too few properties and need to build more0 -
-
The government doesn't fund BTL, it merely treats it as a business and pays HB to the standard that the government (incorrectly) sets.
It makes sense for the government to remove the barriers to building new properties by the private sector at no cost to the taxpayer.
housing demand is largely a 'want' rather than a 'need' and so costs can be reduced.
Sorry don't understand your point about healthcare
I agree that not all of BTLs are funded by HB. Having a guaranteed HB recipient does make the business model for many BTL landlords stack up. Without it there would be less demand. Many of those in HB BTLs are what the government can get away with rather than providing high standard accommodation unless oif course you would consider a tent in Jaywick the correct standard.
I am not sure how basic accommodation moves from a need to a want. I take it that your view is that the government sets inappropriate requirements? How many families to a bedroom would be satisfactory?
Bluntly healthcare can be rationed because people will basically pass away at some point and/or the condition can be "managed" with relatively cheap medication."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: »I agree that not all of BTLs are funded by HB. Having a guaranteed HB recipient does make the business model for many BTL landlords stack up. Without it there would be less demand. Many of those in HB BTLs are what the government can get away with rather than providing high standard accommodation unless oif course you would consider a tent in Jaywick the correct standard.
I am not sure how basic accommodation moves from a need to a want. I take it that your view is that the government sets inappropriate requirements? How many families to a bedroom would be satisfactory?
Bluntly healthcare can be rationed because people will basically pass away at some point and/or the condition can be "managed" with relatively cheap medication.
the government can reduce the barriers to building more properties at little cost which will address the basic problem
as you know the standards applied to social tenant do not apply to the rest of the population - a bit less drastic than letting them pass away0 -
social housing can be inherited by the children
and anyway why aren't the children of social tenants allowed housing?
my definition of normal people is everyone: sadly current polices distinguish between social and normal people by making different rules and having different subsidies.
I'm suggesting that standards for social tenants should be no higher than for those people I'm not allowed to refer to.
If there are escalating costs of renting then that probably says we have too few properties and need to build more
There is no reason why children should "inherit" the property of the late tenant. If they have a need for accommodation then this should be assessed and something suitable provided.
The escalating costs will continue because unfortunately there population continues to grow, disposable income for many is falling and a large percentage will not meet prudent lending guidelines, to allow purchase, for a whole host of reasons. Even the relatively prosperous are in need of government subsidy.
On the basis that we the taxpayer will have to fund it (accommodation), regardless of our beliefs, I would like it done in the most cost effective, efficient way. I have yet to be convinced that funding "BTL" social housing meets either criteria on a long term basis."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 -
the government can reduce the barriers to building more properties at little cost which will address the basic problem
as you know the standards applied to social tenant do not apply to the rest of the population - a bit less drastic than letting them pass away
Do you really believe that enough houses can be build in London and surrounding areas to reduce prices to a level where low paid workers can afford properties without HB.0 -
ffacoffipawb wrote: »The average of 16,991 and nine 17,001 is 17,000 and the majority is more than 17,000.
So your basic maths is wrong.
I assume you are clever enough to know I was correct in the context of the discussion.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
- 245.2K 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