Right to buy to be extended

Rinoa

AIUI this will only apply to those houses which were 'gifted' by the local authority.

TheBlueHorse

50% of developments need to be social housing?? Do f**k off whoever thought of that.

1. builders just won't build if that if the situation, which means lower stocks and better house prices for all.

2. people don't want to buy an expensive house on a nice development if they are surrounded by HA trash.

padington

It won't happen of course, this will be the first to get torn up in a coalition.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The supply of properties is unchanged ; only the ownership changes

however, I see no good reason for a massive subsidy to be given to people who are already heavily subsidised.

It is not a DISCOUNT SALE or a subsidy

It is in fact a very lucrative and PROFITABLE sale for the government (at least in most places)


Think of it this way MR Clapton

You have a BTL which was gifted to you by say your mother. It has no mortgage on it but it comes with a regulated tenant (your mums old friend) who pays you £300 per month and for that you need to keep the tenant happy and maintain the property and insure it and etc etc. You cant kick them out and they are there for life and they are only 20 years old and look likely to live to the age of 100 and that they can pass on this secured tenancy to their kids and their kids and their kids...


now forget where the house is,
what is its value to you?


well its £300 minus your own costs to maintain it. You might make £150 a month on it after your costs or maybe even nothing (a boiler replacement could well cost you a whole years rent!)

but lets just go with this asset is worth to you £150 per month or £1800 per year



well what is £1800 per year worth to you ???

what would i need to offer you to buy this asset off of you
ITs pretty much irrelevant what this income is, a house a boat dividends a business etc

In insurance I think its called...discounted cash flow value....or somesuch

anyway lets multiply that income by 30x (3.3% yeild) to give £54k value


So if you could sell that asset for £54k or more its probably worth it for you to do that. if someone is offering you £250k for the asset you should bite thier hands off


and that is effectively what council house sales are like in London

An asset producing virtually nothing, is being exchanged for £300k ++



The subsidy isnt at the point of sale, it was at the point of giving the secure tenancy

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

I was reading one of the local plans last night for a London council and it seems the default option now is to go with 50% for what they call "affordable homes" which is propaganda for "social homes"

Brilliant for potential home owners who like Huskies, Staffordshire Bulls, houses wrapped in satellite cable, small noisy cars and litter blowing through the air.

cells

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

50% of developments need to be social housing?? Do f**k off whoever thought of that.

1. builders just won't build if that if the situation, which means lower stocks and better house prices for all.

2. people don't want to buy an expensive house on a nice development if they are surrounded by HA trash.

the percentage of developments that need to be for social housing isn't fixed a council can determine it themselves but at least in London its often 50%

people do buy expensive homes in developments that are 50% HA because most people don't know that this nice new expensive development will be 50% HA and the sellers of course never mention this at all


also for people thinking maybe this is just a target and not how the real world works. I was looking at my local councils performance for last year and they stat of all the new build homes they were able to achieve 48% as social homes (target is 50%)

Its slightly under 50% as they cant force people who are building 1-2 home to give them 50% of it

michaels

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?

N1AK

cells wrote: »

It is not a DISCOUNT SALE or a subsidy

It is in fact a very lucrative and PROFITABLE sale for the government (at least in most places)

It is a subsidy. Of course, we are already subsidising occupants, but that's no justification for handing tens of thousands each to a small group of people.

We could easily remove the current subsidy by charging market rents for public housing; the current system of giving a small fraction of the public discounted rent makes no sense.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Brilliant for potential home owners who like Huskies, Staffordshire Bulls, houses wrapped in satellite cable, small noisy cars and litter blowing through the air.

not all social tenants are bad

but of course its a simple fact that social tenants on average are worse than private renters or owners because the social landlords (HA/Councils) need to house the people who no one else will touch (alcoholics, people who can not even take care of their basic hygiene, mentally ill people, abusive and violent people etc)

of course they need to go somewhere

cells

N1AK wrote: »

It is a subsidy. Of course, we are already subsidising occupants, but that's no justification for handing tens of thousands each to a small group of people.

We could easily remove the current subsidy by charging market rents for public housing; the current system of giving a small fraction of the public discounted rent makes no sense.

how can you charge market rents?

if you have a private BTL and you sign a secured life tenancy at a very low price you cant just change your mind and charge the market rate


of course it can be done when the tenancy ends