Housing Before BTL

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You want to move pensioneers from social housing in London to other parts of the country or have I got that wrong.

not by pointing a gun to your face but by putting in place an incentive by which you want to do that. Also I suspect most incentives would sway families not a old frail pensioner

normal people who did not win a lotto ticket 50 years ago have to make this choice too (be they renters or owners). They may decide its worthwhile selling the family home and moving to stoke or they might not. They might decide its better to stop paying £1.5k a month in rent in inner London and instead go to Luton 25 miles away and pay £0.5k a month

a lotto win stops all that and allocation of resources becomes poor.

Think of it this way, why not give social tenants the right to rent out their properties and go rent elsewhere themselves. Then a social tenant in Hackney (say a personnel or single mother) might decide its well worthwhile to rent out their London flat for £2,000 per month and go rent a flat in stoke for £400 a month and pocket the £1.6k a month difference. IF they do that willingly then they are happy to do it. They tax payer is also better off. Transport and utilities are better off. Population growth is more even. etc

ukcarper wrote: »

What has me winning a lotto ticket go anything to do with anything yes my parents got a council house in 50 years ago as a large number of people did, they both worked all thier lives but we're never in a position to buy or pay high private rents in the area they lived.

there is a place for a certain number of council homes but it is not 5 million. There are not 5 million people in need who would otherwise be screwed had they not won a lotto ticket especially considering

also your parents in the lotto house in inner london while they may be happy are denying others who want that ticket. who is to say the people who would move in after your mum are less deserving? maybe it will be a family with 2 disabled kids and 2 pensioners all being looked after by their son who lives 1 street away.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the point ukcarper or I made.

Again, faced with the reality of a real situation, you offer some pie in the sky fairy land response to ignore dealing with realism.

if you can make the case that in a particular situation the nation is better off with a lotto winner staying in that particular lotto house thats fine let it continue but what about the people who that does not apply to which will clearly be the majority?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In terms of this thread, it's displayed by the "force the poorer out of london, their lives, their support netowkr, their relatives don't matter". This is fine until cleaners, shop assistants etc are all gone and being taken over by people living in HMOs. Parts of London already have this issue.

Jeez. This is something which isn't going to happen and you, apparently, don't want to discuss but you still have to make things up.

There's no force involved. If someone doesn't like the idea of a free house up North and a £3k brucey bonus for a few years then they can stay.

Perversely, it would be much much simpler, and quicker, to force people out. Just dramatically reduce housing benefits and rent subsidies.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Unless it's HTB, or QE, or anything you may personally favour from via an increase in your property value?

This appears to be the issue, and I think you may even agree. You get nothing from this subsidy. You do from other subsidies into the housing market which you quite clearly support.

If I'm all about things which increase HPI then what do you think will happen to house prices if housing benefit etc were removed? Answer that and stay fashionable.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Perversely, it would be much much simpler, and quicker, to force people out. Just dramatically reduce housing benefits and rent subsidies.

its probably headed that way

the easiest or rather least hard way to reduce the social housing in inner London would be to sell them off as they become vacant. Some 30,000 a year become vacant in London.

Also a general point I was trying to make but it got lost in all the 'where is my grandma gona live' is that for maybe half the social stock just giving it away would possibly be a lower cost and lead to medium and long term benefits for all. To some degree we already have this with RTB discounts of upto 70% why kid ourselves just up it to 99% in the towns and cities where its more of a liability than an asset

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Jeez. This is something which isn't going to happen and you, apparently, don't want to discuss but you still have to make things up.

There's no force involved. If someone doesn't like the idea of a free house up North and a £3k brucey bonus for a few years then they can stay.

Perversely, it would be much much simpler, and quicker, to force people out. Just dramatically reduce housing benefits and rent subsidies.

It's not going to happen full stop because very few of the people who Cell's wants to move out would.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

not by pointing a gun to your face but by putting in place an incentive by which you want to do that. Also I suspect most incentives would sway families not a old frail pensioner

normal people who did not win a lotto ticket 50 years ago have to make this choice too (be they renters or owners). They may decide its worthwhile selling the family home and moving to stoke or they might not. They might decide its better to stop paying £1.5k a month in rent in inner London and instead go to Luton 25 miles away and pay £0.5k a month

a lotto win stops all that and allocation of resources becomes poor.

Think of it this way, why not give social tenants the right to rent out their properties and go rent elsewhere themselves. Then a social tenant in Hackney (say a personnel or single mother) might decide its well worthwhile to rent out their London flat for £2,000 per month and go rent a flat in stoke for £400 a month and pocket the £1.6k a month difference. IF they do that willingly then they are happy to do it. They tax payer is also better off. Transport and utilities are better off. Population growth is more even. etc






there is a place for a certain number of council homes but it is not 5 million. There are not 5 million people in need who would otherwise be screwed had they not won a lotto ticket especially considering

also your parents in the lotto house in inner london while they may be happy are denying others who want that ticket. who is to say the people who would move in after your mum are less deserving? maybe it will be a family with 2 disabled kids and 2 pensioners all being looked after by their son who lives 1 street away.

You make to many assumptions many of which are incorrect. The premise of your argument is to try and make people who are in social housing move out of London your idea that many could be incentivised to do so by buying them a cheap house would not work.

You could use the argument that property is cheaper up north therefore people would be financially better off if they moved north I fit in to that category like many others but I wont be moving.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Jeez. This is something which isn't going to happen and you, apparently, don't want to discuss but you still have to make things up.

There's no force involved. If someone doesn't like the idea of a free house up North and a £3k brucey bonus for a few years then they can stay.

Perversely, it would be much much simpler, and quicker, to force people out. Just dramatically reduce housing benefits and rent subsidies.

you could reduce housing benefit in London I believe its already happening but that would also impact on the many workers in London who need that to be able to live and work there.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

you could reduce housing benefit in London I believe its already happening but that would also impact on the many workers in London who need that to be able to live and work there.

Good. Londoners can decide for themselves whether they're willing to support the full costs of the people that receive housing benefits.

If they are then that's great and they can continue to have a Starbucks, Costa or Pret every 20 yards down the street but if not these workers will have to seek work somewhere cheaper and reduce the pressure on accommodation for more essential workers and those who can fund their own housing.