Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

farnham + 1 mile rightmove search

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54691429.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54382957.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42131661.html

1 Bed Flat for £135k. Put £15k down. Borrow the rest = £200 per month interest

2 Bed Flat for £150k. Put down £15k borrow the rest at 2% = £225 per month interest

3 Bed House for £250k. Put down £25k borrow the rest at 2% = £375 per month interest


By comparision the council rents in guildford (The ons excel sheet doesnt do just farnham so I searched the nearest place) is £513* per month. Or if you want to look at the England average its £330 per month for a 1 bed social flat. £370pm for a 2 bed. £410 for a 3 bed


So yes even Farnham + 1 mile is cheaper than social rents in the local place, hell its cheaper than the average social rent for all of England

AND DONT FORGET YOUR ARE FIXING YOUR COSTS WHILE THE EVIL SOCIAL LANDLORDS KEEP PUTTING THE RENTS UP EVERY YEAR!!!

* I had to project foward the rents to the most recent tax year as its only got 2014/15 data I simply took the social rent increases of the last two years and projected that forward seems reasonable to me

First one retirement property, second could be OK third one do you know where Headly down is.

I'll ask again where is the person on £25k going to get the £150k mortgage.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

Using your argument well all just move up north and leave the south devoid of all services.

Mmmm no, it's how free market economics should work.

As I said if it's uneconomical for workers to commute into the region to perform the work required or if it's uneconomical for workers to live in the area and provide services then those in the area and the business in the area will be required to pay more in order to attract workers into the area in order to do the jobs required.

What government subsidy in that instance will do is increase tax burden on the whole and increase the subsidy of richer areas by the state. For example if you can't get people to come in and clean offices in that area for anything less than £20 per hour, then people should be paid £20 per hour in order to do it. If that's unpalatable to the rich in those areas to pay those prices then the job won't get done.

I think the free market is fairer than a state subsidy which would mean that rich people could pay a cleaner the minimum wage or a lesser wage in a rich area whilst the state and the rest of the UK taxpayers pick up the tab for the subsidised housing.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is it's not like that in the south east the cheap areas like dove are miles from the more expensive areas. The area I live in is probably the cheapest part of Surrey that's why I moved there and the cheapest area near me is in Hampshire and a 2 bed house is £250k.

£250k house 10% down 2% mortgage = £375 per month in interest

The average for all of England for a 2 bed council property is £370 in rent. However that is the rents of 2 years ago so its likely closer to the £400pm mark as the social landlords have been increasing rents above inflation for some time now.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Your still talking about median what about people earning less than that.

50% of people earn less than the median
17% of the stock is social
That means 34% of them can go into the social

And as I pointed out, in most the country the median couple can buy the average terrace house with ease. Even the couple on minimium wage can


Can you at least specifically state you are talking about the ~20% highest parts of the country. That for the ~80% the median couple working full time can easily afford the properties. And in much of the country so can the couple on min wage and remember something like 90% of people earn more than min wage and its skewed towards the younger folk

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Mmmm no, it's how free market economics should work.

As I said if it's uneconomical for workers to commute into the region to perform the work required or if it's uneconomical for workers to live in the area and provide services then those in the area and the business in the area will be required to pay more in order to attract workers into the area in order to do the jobs required.

What government subsidy in that instance will do is increase tax burden on the whole and increase the subsidy of richer areas by the state. For example if you can't get people to come in and clean offices in that area for anything less than £20 per hour, then people should be paid £20 per hour in order to do it. If that's unpalatable to the rich in those areas to pay those prices then the job won't get done.

I think the free market is fairer than a state subsidy which would mean that rich people could pay a cleaner the minimum wage or a lesser wage in a rich area whilst the state and the rest of the UK taxpayers pick up the tab for the subsidised housing.

That's the theory let's let government pull housing benefit and see what happens.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

First one retirement property, second could be OK third one do you know where Headly down is.

I'll ask again where is the person on £25k going to get the £150k mortgage.

why is a single adult on far less than the full time median wage entitled to buy what is at £150k a far higher price than average terrace in most of the country?

There are about 50 million adults in the country. Should they all be living one to a house?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

50% of people earn less than the median
17% of the stock is social
That means 34% of them can go into the social

And as I pointed out, in most the country the median couple can buy the average terrace house with ease. Even the couple on minimium wage can


Can you at least specifically state you are talking about the ~20% highest parts of the country. That for the ~80% the median couple working full time can easily afford the properties. And in much of the country so can the couple on min wage and remember something like 90% of people earn more than min wage and its skewed towards the younger folk

Address the problem in the south east I agree in some places people can buy. Single person Aldershot not exactly a nice part of south east cheapest flat £120k what does some one earning £15k do.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

That's the theory let's let government pull housing benefit and see what happens.

The only way it can pull housing benefits from the private sector is if the government goes out and buys lots of homes off estate agents.

As a start it can theoretically go out and buy 200,000 right now off rightmove. The cheaper end stuff and then rent it out to social tenants. 200,000 households would move from private rental to social rentals.

What happens to rent prices, what happens to house prices, when the government does the above?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Address the problem in the south east I agree in some places people can buy. Single person Aldershot not exactly a nice part of south east cheapest flat £120k what does some one earning £15k do.

whats a 15 year old boy doing a paperround for £3k a year do? where can he afford to buy! Clearly prices must drop to 3 x his income = £9k a year. Once that happens prices are affordable and not before...

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

That's the theory let's let government pull housing benefit and see what happens.

And that's why we have underpaid workers because who doesn't want free housing?

It's a shame that we have ideals of the left so entrenched that we can't actually fix our economic systems for the benefit of all. When you're properly remunerated for the work you do you ought to be able to make a living in that particular area.