Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't think there is a reason why cheap areas are cheap then.

I'm sure there are many reasons, some of them quite complex.

I've been to some right s--- holes in the South East and some very nice areas outside of it, so it's far more complicated than SE = nice so expensive, non-SE = nasty so cheap.

I think you need to get out more.

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

The block goes from 50 households receiving £500 per month in HB to a privately owned block not needing HB. That is a saving of £300,000 a year.

No, it's zero. There's no net change. The state charges social tenants rent and pays benefit to them with which the rent is paid. So the state both pays and receives back the HB. If it stops paying HB and stops paying rent there will be no difference. Constructively, social tenants get free housing.

In theory there'd be a saving from those who drank their HB, then defaulted on the rent. In those instances, although the state pays out the HB, it never gets it back as rent. So that is a true net cash loss because money has exited the loop and has been spent elsewhere. If your idea eliminated those, you'd also eliminate that cost. But of course the people likeliest to drink or otherwise welsh on the rent either won't take up the right to buy in the first place or, if they do, they will just get repo'ed. At that point the council will have to rehouse 8-Ace and his bairns for nothing again.

There'd only be a saving if you stopped money leaving the state's pocket. HB paid to private landlords leaves the state's pocket in the same way.

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

No, it's zero. There's no net change. The state charges social tenants rent and pays benefit to them with which the rent is paid. So the state both pays and receives back the HB. If it stops paying HB and stops paying rent there will be no difference. Constructively, social tenants get free housing.

currently this free housing has an army of workers some efficient some pretend turn up get paid. This is the main reason why you can buy a house for £80k and pay £120 a month in interest while the council will charge you £400 per month

If the council homes are privatized you dont need the army of social workers to manage the stock nor any of their own overheads eg the offices they work in or the utilities they use or... the people will manage their own homes cutting out the middlemen who add real cost.

you then free up those staff to get work produces goods and services people need and want


so its a true saving, instead of allocating resources both capital and manpower to manage the stock you sell the stock and let people manage them themselves. My estimate is that its about £200pm as this overhead

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm sure there are many reasons, some of them quite complex.

I've been to some right s--- holes in the South East and some very nice areas outside of it, so it's far more complicated than SE = nice so expensive, non-SE = nasty so cheap.

I think you need to get out more.

I don't believe it's down to whether an area is nice I live in south east and know full well there are some s--- holes as you put it the problem is property it these s---- holes is more expensive than properties in some very nice places outside the south east.

If we are being rude I think you better get that northern chip off your shoulder.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

What?

If we take a town up north where it costs £100 per month in interest to buy a house or £400 per month in interest to rent off the council then that shows in that town the council is not efficient enough to be providing housing

As the properties become vacant they should be sold so people can buy them and pay £100 per month in interest rather than £400 per month to the council

The only difference in selling the property to an existing social tenant or selling it in the open market when it becomes available is a lotto ticket

I'm sure it's not as simple as it costs councils £300 a month to run social housing you read to much into headline figures.

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

currently this free housing has an army of workers some efficient some pretend turn up get paid. This is the main reason why you can buy a house for £80k and pay £120 a month in interest while the council will charge you £400 per month

If the council homes are privatized you dont need the army of social workers to manage the stock nor any of their own overheads eg the offices they work in or the utilities they use or... the people will manage their own homes cutting out the middlemen who add real cost.

you then free up those staff to get work produces goods and services people need and want


so its a true saving, instead of allocating resources both capital and manpower to manage the stock you sell the stock and let people manage them themselves. My estimate is that its about £200pm as this overhead

Maybe, but your calculation is based on two suppositions - that social tenants want to buy and that they will maintain their property. Having always had this done for free, I would guess they will have no inkling of how much it costs to do the latter. When they find out they will -probably not bother.

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

how will the housing associations and councils cope when their social tenants no longer get HB? or is HB only evil when its for a tenant renting a non social property?

I'd be a supporter of radical reform of the system.

It's absolutely not ok to be paying thousands in rent for massive homes for large families in a perpetual state of handouts.

The safety net should be just that, not a way of life.

TrickyTree83

gadgetmind wrote: »

Agreed. Reduce taxes across the board and let people fund their own property. If this means they need to travel or relocate, well that's no bad thing.



Why? Huge numbers of people live in large apartments and are perfectly happy with them. Go to (say) New York and it's absolutely the norm, the apartments are good quality, and they are well maintained.

Well I wouldn't make it plush. It needs to be of a minimum standard but shouldn't be considered permanent by anyone. I agree about the apartments, my reference to my wife's family living in a soviet era tower block - they do fine. They're alive, they're warm and dry, they can feed and clothe themselves. If it's good enough for them then why not as our safety net here in the UK? When you start paying the rent of 10 bed victorian villas in London you have to question the viability of the system.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

the problem is property it these s---- holes is more expensive than properties in some very nice places outside the south east.

Well obviously. You asked "You don't think there is a reason why cheap areas are cheap then." What reason did you have in mind when asking that?

If we are being rude I think you better get that northern chip off your shoulder.

Perhaps the rudeness started when you said something along the lines of "as bad as the North" when referring to Dover?

You're coming across as a bit of snob who looks down on areas with affordable housing while still complaining about how expensive property is in your current location.

Oh, hang on, I think we can delete "current".

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

Well obviously. You asked "You don't think there is a reason why cheap areas are cheap then." What reason did you have in mind when asking that?



Perhaps the rudeness started when you said something along the lines of "as bad as the North" when referring to Dover?

You're coming across as a bit of snob who looks down on areas with affordable housing while still complaining about how expensive property is in your current location.

Oh, hang on, I think we can delete "current".

I think the reason London and the south east are more expensive than places like Stoke is because of supply and demand and the availability of good employment.

I see you haven't got a sense of humour.

Although my current location is expensive compared to many areas outside the south east it's probably the cheapest part of Surrey that's why I moved there from one of the most expensive.