Right to buy to be extended

vivatifosi

I think there could be a different set of answers michaels. Other solutions are available... sell off but at market value; rent at closer to market rent; extend the 'bedroom tax' to everyone in social housing to stop under occupation, reduce the period of tenancy so it's a solution for those in need at the time they are in need for example. Depending on people's politics, some of those may be preferable to others. Plus the ownership of the asset in the first place is problematic if not council.

There was an interesting piece on R4 on the way home. Said even with discount you'd need to be on a v high salary to be able to achieve RTB on a flat in London. Which raises the question... why would high earners be living there in the first place? Other than union leaders and MPs that is.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

There was an interesting piece on R4 on the way home. Said even with discount you'd need to be on a v high salary to be able to achieve RTB on a flat in London. Which raises the question... why would high earners be living there in the first place? Other than union leaders and MPs that is.

It's raised another interesting point too. There are some places in London where only the "poor" and super wealthy can afford to live.

The poor live there in the council housing. They are surrounded by the super rich, and in one case, overlook Harrods.

We could see the "poor" wiped out in these areas. The middle classes have already been eradicated, but these will be the houses the councils are forced to sell when they become vacant. Many of the people occupying these houses are old as it is.

I don't have an opinion on this either way really, but it's at least interesting that whole areas could become the preserve of the super rich and the "poor" who have been living there for decades eradicated completely.

There was a programme on this on the BBC not too long ago, following a doctor doing house calls to the super rich and then visiting those who live amongst them who cannot afford much at all. That programme did explore the resent the super wealthy have for those living among them. So interesting that this directly forces those poor out.

Edit: Weird - it's on again on BBC two after newsnight tonight! "Inside Harley Street". Not sure it's the exact same programme, but the description looks the same.

Graham_Devon

And even Boris has come out and said this new right to buy could be massively expensive....

Just last month....

But Boris Johnson, London's Mayor and the favourite to succeed David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party, said extending the scheme "would involve massive subsidies". Speaking at Mayor's question time Johnson told the London Assembly:

"If I may say so, obviously one of the issues with extending the right-to-buy to housing associations in the way that I think you are thinking of is that it would be potentially extremely costly to this body. We would have to make up the difference."

We would have to make up the difference. Housing associations are private bodies, as we all know.

"It would involve massive subsidies. We would need to get the funds to support that. However, at the moment, I want to stress that there is no such policy."

Apparently this was all but written off a month ago as it proved too expensive as they would have to provide "massive subsidies to the housing associations" (Boris' words).

Graham_Devon

And something else from the National Housing Federation.

They state based on the tories figures, they could build a million shared ownership homes for the same money as this policy is projected to cost.

A million!!!!

Instead, this will benefit a maximum of 27,000 families a year.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And something else from the National Housing Federation.

They state based on the tories figures, they could build a million shared ownership homes for the same money as this policy is projected to cost.

A million!!!!

Instead, this will benefit a maximum of 27,000 families a year.

As one would assume the cost of building a house was largely independent of policy, the question is to cost to whom?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

As one would assume the cost of building a house was largely independent of policy, the question is to cost to whom?

Not sure you got the point. The cost is ours, either way.

On tory figures, this will cost the taxpayer £17.5bn over the next parliament.

A million new shared ownership homes would also cost the taxpayer £17.5bn.

Either way, the taxpayer shells out £17.5bn. One policy helps a maximum of 135,000 families.

The other policy helps 1,000,000 families.

Honestly. There is no argument here that proves that the RTB policy is the best use of the money here. But do feel free to try.

cells

estimate is that this will result in about 25k extra sales over the whole next 5 years a trivial small number

supporter or hater of this its not a big impact

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure you got the point. The cost is ours, either way.

On tory figures, this will cost the taxpayer £17.5bn over the next parliament.

A million new shared ownership homes would also cost the taxpayer £17.5bn.

Either way, the taxpayer shells out £17.5bn. One policy helps a maximum of 135,000 families.

The other policy helps 1,000,000 families.

Honestly. There is no argument here that proves that the RTB policy is the best use of the money here. But do feel free to try.

how can it cost 17.5 billion when the average discount is about 50k that would be selling 350k more homes over the next 5 years which is impossible

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

how can it cost 17.5 billion when the average discount is about 50k that would be selling 350k more homes over the next 5 years which is impossible

Not sure, but apparently thats the tory costing. Backed up by the treasury. Wasn't a figure Michael Gove took objection to on Newsnight either.

Presume it's the cost of compensation to the HA's and cost of building replacement homes.

It's not JUST The cost of the subsidy the potential new owner receives.

If you plan to give a 70k (or £103k in London) subsidy, PLUS build a new home, PLUS hand out compensation to the HA's for their loss, PLUS run the systems, it all adds up.

restless6

Even if the RTB is extended, the tenants are not going to suddenly be able to all afford it anyway!

I have the RTB and have paid full rent for 13yrs here, but cannot buy as i cannot get a mortgage.
So it wouldn't make any difference to me or many others in my position.