MSPs due to scrap council tenants' 'right to buy'

I_have_spoken

All the council hooses in decent estates have been sold anyway.

CLAPTON

I_have_spoken wrote: »

All the council hooses in decent estates have been sold anyway.

rubbish .... ....................

mayonnaise

the_flying_pig wrote: »

as in, what, sell something to person A that's worth [say] £100k for [say] £50k?

yep, that'd certainly increase his net worth.

by about £50k.

correspondingly reducing that of the state by a not dissimilar amount.

CLAPTON wrote: »

true

in exactly the same way, letting out taxpayers property at below market price is reducing the state's (taxpayer) net worth too.

It's remarkable, isn't it?
The usual suspects are up in arms when public funds are aimed at helping potential home owners, whether it's RTB or HTB, but are perfectly happy for the state/council to fund perpetual social rents below market price.

cells

If social homes are so good the government should buy homes off the market and let them out as social homes expanding the stock very quickly.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's remarkable, isn't it?
The usual suspects are up in arms when public funds are aimed at helping potential home owners, whether it's RTB or HTB, but are perfectly happy for the state/council to fund perpetual social rents below market price.

Can you not figure out the difference?

One is a direct subsidy to one family to buy and OWN an asset.

The other is a subsidy (if you want to call it that) to house someone in an asset that the STATE owns and can use to help out many families.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Sky_

Sky_ wrote: »

I still think it's a great idea. We desperately need more social housing for vulnerable people and families (though I think the tenancies should be time-limited or conditional, so that people move when their needs change).

Maybe the odd person does get too complacent but so what! Far better than people/families ending up homeless because they can't afford private rentals.

CLAPTON wrote: »

what do you think is a great idea?

that every single family in the uK should get tax payer subsidised housing?

Clearly, since "vulnerable" isthe only adjective I used, to describe the people and families I was referring to.

If "vulnerable" equals ''all'' to you then hey-ho! It tells me all I need to know about your attitude and personal perspective.

Sky_

cells wrote: »

If social homes are so good the government should buy homes off the market and let them out as social homes expanding the stock very quickly.

With what funds?

Some councils are reaching deals with landlords to secure 5 year tenancies, at full market rent, for people on the SH list. I think that is the best idea that's around at the moment.

Graham_Devon

Sky_ wrote: »

Clearly, since "vulnerable" isthe only adjective I used, to describe the people and families I was referring to.

If "vulnerable" equals ''all'' to you then hey-ho! It tells me all I need to know about your attitude and personal perspective.

Don't worry, he does this constantly.

Speedybrain

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thought this was interesting given the discussions on social housing recently

I totally agree with this. They should do the same in England.

cells

Sky_ wrote: »

With what funds?

Some councils are reaching deals with landlords to secure 5 year around order at full market rent, for people on the SH list. I think that is the best idea that's around at the moment.

The government can just issue £100B more in gilts and buy 1 million homes with that. They would pay only around £1B a year in interest or just £1000 per house per year