Right to buy to be extended

cells

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?

very good post

ukcarper

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

surely every house sold is money into the coffers? Surely every tennant that buys, means another scrounger on subsidised rent is removed from the equasion.

All the Govt need to do now is stop housing for everyone - except the disabled. Everyone else can make their own arrangements - especially young girls who get themselves up the duff at 16. No need for a free flat for them.

Much better to put them in private rental property and double the amount of housing benefit you give them.

shortchanged_2

michaels wrote: »

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?

Of course this is what should happen but it never does. They never replace the stock that is sold off at satisfactory level, therefore the housing crisis is made worse as btl landlords suck up the sold social stock and push rents up ever further.

More barmy tory policies. Again showing they are the party of and for the wealthy. They are really showing their true colours with this now and their planned IHT changes.

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

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

The social housing enclave on my estate isn't occupied by the people you list - in general they're people who are less inclined to maintain or improve the environment they live in than the homeowners on the estate.

I have no issue with the taxpayer funding help and care for the vulnerable but don't see why anyone's housing should be subsidised for life based on a one-off arbitrary assessment of 'need'.

cells

Slinky wrote: »

I was going to vote Tory, but I'm seriously having a rethink based on this announcement, and I never thought I'd be saying that.

It's just utter madness.

no it isn't for many reasons, but also think of this fact

There are currently some 5 million council/social homes with the RTBs available on the vast majority, but the take-up runs at about 1,000 a year. tenants simply aren't able to afford to RTB discount or not

so even if this comes in, its going to allow maybe a million people the right, of which maybe a few hundred can actually go with it


the more important proposal is the sale of more expensive social homes, that makes perfect sense. If you can sell a council home for £500k then do it and spend the money on building 5 more homes elsewhere

cells

shortchanged wrote: »

Of course this is what should happen but it never does. They never replace the stock that is sold off at satisfactory level, therefore the housing crisis is made worse as btl landlords suck up the sold social stock and push rents up ever further.

More barmy tory policies. Again showing they are the party of and for the wealthy. They are really showing their true colours with this now and their planned IHT changes.

but the fact is that private rented homes are occupied at the highest density and social rented at the lowest density

So a conversion from social to private rental means more housing is provided

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Much better to put them in private rental property and double the amount of housing benefit you give them.

by the same logic, should the councils not buy houses listed on right move and rent them out

seeing as the government can issue gilts at 1% even a £400k house can be rented out at break even for ~£400 per month

Out,_Vile_Jelly

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?

Council houses offer community stability by letting families focus on jobs and their kids' education rather than worrying about their LL constantly ending tenancies. They also help in areas where there is an imbalance between property prices and local wages, such as in rural North Dorset where a friend of mine wouldn't have been able to move out of her parents' house without a rare 1 bed council maisonette being available (most houses round there are the type on Escape To The Country, only affordable to those downsizing from London). We've had council houses for decades now in this country, and I think most would agree they are A Good Thing.

The point about Right To Buy is that none of the capital released has resulted in like for like replacement of social housing.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

The social housing enclave on my estate isn't occupied by the people you list - in general they're people who are less inclined to maintain or improve the environment they live in than the homeowners on the estate.

I have no issue with the taxpayer funding help and care for the vulnerable but don't see why anyone's housing should be subsidised for life based on a one-off arbitrary assessment of 'need'.

I total agree with this, I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but Bob Crowe was a perfect example of this. I forget what his salary was, but it was way above the level where people should receive housing subsidy.


EDIT: According to this link, his salary was £96k:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/03/12/the-myth-of-bob-crows-145000-salary/

michaels

Given rtb is such a terrible thing I assume in the labour manifesto it states very clearly that it will be rescinded as soon as they take power?