Right to buy to be extended

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

So you just pass a law that says they have to do it. No different from Miliband wanting to pass a law that says if your house has inflated, he can rob you.

Also, the housing associations - if they are up to their job - will be selling 4 flats in a house for £250k each that are worth £350k. With the million quid they buy a plot of land - cost in London about £125k - and build another house with four more flats on it. This costs about another £375k so the result is they sell four homes and use the money to build 8. Where there were 4 homes there'll be 12.

Seems very sensible and ensures that more homes get built, which is what's needed.

where in London can you buy a plot of land sufficient for 4 flats for £125k?

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I see the tories are now funding 30 hours free childcare for all 3 & 4 year olds.

Theres no mention on how it's funded though. It appears to be all pulled from thin air.

Seems it's even upsetting the tory peer Sir Stuart Rose now too!

And yet even if it is all funded by extra borrowing it still means borrowing a lot less than labour are proposing passing on to our children as taxes.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

And yet even if it is all funded by extra borrowing it still means borrowing a lot less than labour are proposing passing on to our children as taxes.

Any meat on the bones of that comment?

I find it hard to figure out how you can know that considering we don't even know how these things are to be funded?

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Any meat on the bones of that comment?

I find it hard to figure out how you can know that considering we don't even know how these things are to be funded?

How about this from not known for his right wing leanings Robert Peston suggesting Labour plan to borrow 32bn (=32bn plus interest to be paid in tax by our children) more than the Conservaties in 2019/20 alone?

They are committed to balancing the overall budget in all "normal" years. That means, for example, Labour could borrow £32bn to finance investment in 2019-20 (the amount pencilled in for the current government's plans) whereas the Tories could not borrow that sum.

Gangaweed

And the tories have the gall to call labour the party of something for nothing.

I was going to vote tory but with this idiocy I'm not sure I'll be able to bring myself to do so.

ViolaLass

Moby wrote: »

Priti Patel just got mauled by Eddie Mayer on pm. Ouch they should have stopped the interview. Absolutely no idea, (other than a growing economy) as to how these policies are to be paid for. It must be the magic money tree they always accuse labour of using.

I thought that interview was gold.

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

Why is renting taxpayer owned houses at a big discount to market prices 'a good thing' and yet selling the same houses to the same people at a similar discount to market prices the worst thing ever?

Clearly it is based on the coments here but no one ever explains why. I am honestly not trying to make a political point just want to know why one form of housing subsidy is good and the other is bad.

Surely a sale is a much better idea as it frees up capital than can be used to build another cheap house for ann equally deserving person who is currently waiting for a tapayer subsidised house?

It is in effect a legacy system. After WW2, 25% of housing in London was destroyed or damaged and there were significant problems with the stock elsewhere. It's a different problem. Plus post war a good slice of Keyesian demand management could be argued to have helped the country get going again. That wouldn't happen now. Nobody in the current market would design what we have from scratch. But it is what it is. I'm not saying keep it in aspic and preserve as is, just that this is the wrong reform.

I accept your point re effectiveness, but I don't see why, when we have a deficit, anything should be sold at below market value when only a few benefit. It's just an attempt to buy votes. I also don't think that the government should tell housing associations or any other NGO to sell off their assets at below value.

Cyberman60

Moby wrote: »

Priti Patel just got mauled by Eddie Mayer on pm. Ouch they should have stopped the interview. Absolutely no idea, (other than a growing economy) as to how these policies are to be paid for. It must be the magic money tree they always accuse labour of using.

A growing economy creates extra wealth and corresponding extra tax revenues by virtue of higher employment and more businesses and growing businesses. The Tories are proving that they can do it over the past five years through lower taxation for businesses and consumers, so it's not unreasonable to say this will finance the NHS etc.

Some people think you have to raise tax levels to get extra tax revenue. It's not true, but simply it is left wing dogma.

Cutting the spending waste of socialism and paying down the deficit can raise/save billions as it has already !!! :T

michaels

vivatifosi wrote: »

It is in effect a legacy system. After WW2, 25% of housing in London was destroyed or damaged and there were significant problems with the stock elsewhere. It's a different problem. Plus post war a good slice of Keyesian demand management could be argued to have helped the country get going again. That wouldn't happen now. Nobody in the current market would design what we have from scratch. But it is what it is. I'm not saying keep it in aspic and preserve as is, just that this is the wrong reform.

I accept your point re effectiveness, but I don't see why, when we have a deficit, anything should be sold at below market value when only a few benefit. It's just an attempt to buy votes. I also don't think that the government should tell housing associations or any other NGO to sell off their assets at below value.

But as per my example, in Westminster a property could be being rented by the council for 1000pcm that would fetch 3000pcm as a private rental, the council is giving away 2k per month that it could be earning = 24k pa = 240k over 10 years - ie much more than it costs for RTB.

Agree with you that the govt should not force a private owner to sell a property (presumably the govt would make up the shortfall between market value and rtb discount and not just steal this from the HA?!) but I do think buying poeple out of what is effectively a discounted tenancy for life does make fiscal sense for taxpayers and if it leads to more housing being built that otherwise wouldn't have been because the capital was tied up and is now released then what is not to like (unless you are a BTL landlord benefiting from the current situation where supply is constrained far below demand)?

CLAPTON

Cyberman60 wrote: »

A growing economy creates extra wealth and corresponding extra tax revenues by virtue of higher employment and more businesses and growing businesses. The Tories are proving that they can do it over the past five years through lower taxation for businesses and consumers, so it's not unreasonable to say this will finance the NHS etc.

Some people think you have to raise tax levels to get extra tax revenue. It's not true, but simply it is left wing dogma.

Cutting the spending waste of socialism and paying down the deficit can raise/save billions as it has already !!! :T

lower taxes over the last 5 years?
I seem to have missed them.