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

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am comparing a family living in social housing :
lets say they are 30 years old with a few children.

- if they stay as social tenants they will probably stay for their entire life which could be say 50-60 years during which time they will have cheap subsidised housing.
The house is then available for another person.

- if they buy and stay there then they will cease to be subsidised but the house will be sold off at a reduced market price.


I haven't actually done any calculations, either about the cash flow or the lifetime cost but the differences don't seem obviously that great.

Pretty wild assumptions though, would you at least agree that?

"A few children" and living there their entire life?

As I said, there are problems with social housing and I don't pretend there aren't, but suggesting it won't work because of scenarios you have portrayed is just silly.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am comparing a family living in social housing :
lets say they are 30 years old with a few children.

- if they stay as social tenants they will probably stay for their entire life which could be say 50-60 years during which time they will have cheap subsidised housing.
The house is then available for another person.

- if they buy and stay there then they will cease to be subsidised but the house will be sold off at a reduced market price.


I haven't actually done any calculations, either about the cash flow or the lifetime cost but the differences don't seem obviously that great.

Focusing on the few children. What options do they have in a reducing social housing market?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Pretty wild assumptions though, would you at least agree that?

"A few children" and living there their entire life?

As I said, there are problems with social housing and I don't pretend there aren't, but suggesting it won't work because of scenarios you have portrayed is just silly.

ok you choose how many children (from zero to 10 if you like).; it makes absolutely no difference to the argument.

and yes, they are likely to stay in the same subsidised property for their entire life.
why do you think they will leave a subsidised home where (maybe) their children grew up ?

I haven't suggested anything 'won't work': what I said was

I haven't actually done any calculations, either about the cash flow or the lifetime cost but the differences don't seem obviously that great.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Focusing on the few children. What options do they have in a reducing social housing market?

I don't believe in social housing at all. the idea of subsidising bricks seems absurd.

If people, at a specific time in their life need help, then fund the people not a load of bricks.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't believe in social housing at all. the idea of subsidising bricks seems absurd.

If people, at a specific time in their life need help, then fund the people not a load of bricks.

Ok, we understand your concept now.
There should be no social housing, at all.

You should only be able to : -

• Afford a place of your own
• Afford a private rental on your own
• Be supported to rent a private home

Not sure this helps social mobility. Saying that, I've only ever fallen into the first two categories myself.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't believe in social housing at all. the idea of subsidising bricks seems absurd.

If people, at a specific time in their life need help, then fund the people not a load of bricks.

Well now I understand why you oppose anything said about it.

Fund the people means what? Housing benefit for life?

Back of a fag packet calc not including inflation, but 60 years of housing benefit at £600 per month would cost £432,000.

Seems an expensive way of doing things?

You often suggest buying is better than renting as you own the asset at the end. Why does this change and renting become better than buying when it comes to the taxpayers pocket?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, we understand your concept now.
There should be no social housing, at all.

You should only be able to : -

• Afford a place of your own
• Afford a private rental on your own
• Be supported to rent a private home

Not sure this helps social mobility. Saying that, I've only ever fallen into the first two categories myself.

I'm not sure why you say 'only':

but the advantage of subsidising people seem to be many with few draw backs

maybe the most important is it doesn't limit peoples actual mobility to find work or improve themselves as, in practice it is very difficult to swap social properties, whilst relatively easy to find a new rental property in a different location.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe the most important is it doesn't limit peoples actual mobility to find work or improve themselves as, in practice it is very difficult to swap social properties, whilst relatively easy to find a new rental property in a different location.

Swapping council accommodation would be easier if there were more of them. The only reason it's difficult now is there are so few, people cling on to the good thing they have.

As for "easier" to move between private rented..... you are talking about people on benefits here. First off, it's extremely hard to find a landlord taking on benefits. You can all but forget agencies taking you on. Secondly the fee's will cripple a lot of these people.

Have you any experience of either social housing or renting in today's rental market? Have you any idea of how little money some of these people have? Just upping and moving isn't easy at all, it's extremely costly and, as were talking about people with kids, involves school catchments, the lot.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well now I understand why you oppose anything said about it.

Fund the people means what? Housing benefit for life?

Back of a fag packet calc not including inflation, but 60 years of housing benefit at £600 per month would cost £432,000.

Seems an expensive way of doing things?

You often suggest buying is better than renting as you own the asset at the end. Why does this change and renting become better than buying when it comes to the taxpayers pocket?

back of a fag packet renting out the property at market rent at say 650 per month would be 468,000 so a profit of 36,000

however other things :

- it's relatively unlike that the people would be eligible for HB for 60 years (jobs and family size is likely to change over 60 years)

- even if they did need HB for 60 years, they wouldn't justify a family sized house so HB would fall

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...You often suggest buying is better than renting as you own the asset at the end. Why does this change and renting become better than buying when it comes to the taxpayers pocket?

it just does.

this is a central tenet of the online property rampers' rulebook.

despite the special factor at play, namely that government can borrow at a vastly lower rate than any owner occupier or BTL-er, when there's nothing analogous for the non-taxpayer case.