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!
Government should help those without bank of mum and dad
Comments
-
-
ok I also agree that capital appreciation is part of the over profit of owning property for landlords
now tell me what that's got to do with your wish for further council house building
I would have thought it was obvious the council would benefit from all the things any other landlord or home owner would benefit from. For some reason you don't see that.0 -
I would have thought it was obvious the council would benefit from all the things any other landlord or home owner would benefit from. For some reason you don't see that.
no I don't see that
It is appropriate for individual people to own property for personal benefit or indeed for profit
but I don't see the role of government as being in business is make profit at the expense of discriminating between random tax payers, giving some people subsidised housing for life irrespective of need or ability to pay at the expense of others more deserving
nor is it their role to inhibit mobility of their tenants0 -
no I don't see that
It is appropriate for individual people to own property for personal benefit or indeed for profit
but I don't see the role of government as being in business is make profit at the expense of discriminating between random tax payers, giving some people subsidised housing for life irrespective of need or ability to pay at the expense of others more deserving
nor is it their role to inhibit mobility of their tenants
You are doing it again ignoring what I have said.0 -
rubbish I have directly addressed your point about why government should not own housing
No you just go on about property for life at a subsidised rent whether they need it or not and ignore anything I or other people have said about charging rent at a rate appropriate to the tenants ability to pay.0 -
No you just go on about property for life at a subsidised rent whether they need it or not and ignore anything I or other people have said about charging rent at a rate appropriate to the tenants ability to pay.
maybe language divides us
-remind me where you said anything 'about charging rent at a rate appropriate to the tenant ability to pay'?
- would you call that a subsidy or not ?
-why do you object to subsiding the person who has a low income rather than the inanimate property (irrespective of the tenants income)0 -
maybe language divides us
-remind me where you said anything 'about charging rent at a rate appropriate to the tenant ability to pay'?
- would you call that a subsidy or not ?
-why do you object to subsiding the person who has a low income rather than the inanimate property (irrespective of the tenants income)
Post 76.
I would call charging less that going rate a subsidy just as LHA is.
It would be cheaper in the long run to subsidise someone in a property you own.0 -
Post 76.
I would call charging less that going rate a subsidy just as LHA is.
It would be cheaper in the long run to subsidise someone in a property you own.
it may or may not be cheaper to subsidise someone who is poor in a property you own
but social housing subsidies EVERYONE who lives in the 'social' housing whether or not they are poor or need subsidy; it also subsidises them for life whether they or not they need it
plus it has the other drawbacks that I have previous alluded to.0 -
it may or may not be cheaper to subsidise someone who is poor in a property you own
but social housing subsidies EVERYONE who lives in the 'social' housing whether or not they are poor or need subsidy; it also subsidises them for life whether they or not they need it
plus it has the other drawbacks that I have previous alluded to.
It does at the moment but that doesn't mean it can't be changed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards