Housing Before BTL

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK, so I've come to a conclusion. You are either trolling or you simply don't get it.

Either way, I can't be bothered with such ridiculous arguments.

The person who has bought their house is not simply paying £20 a week in interest - they are paying off the mortgage too.

Simply giving people houses is fraught with so many issues and hazards I'm surprised you even think it's worth writing about.

So you would object to your taxes going down because some Londoner got a £50k terrace for free instead of making use of a £100k RTB discount?


What should happen is that the government should probably just increase the right to buy discount from 70% to 99.9% in much of the north and midlands. Transfer away 2 million of the cheapest social homes and let them become private homes.

The state and the rest of us would benefit as there would no longer be the need to pay £400 per month per property so the council can hire a load of middlemen to manage the social stock.

Why would you object to making 2 million household owners rather than renters? Why would you object to a few billion off the housing benefit bill?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

So you would object to your taxes going down because some Londoner got a £50k terrace for free instead of making use of a £100k RTB discount?


What should happen is that the government should probably just increase the right to buy discount from 70% to 99.9% in much of the north and midlands. Transfer away 2 million of the cheapest social homes and let them become private homes.

The state and the rest of us would benefit as there would no longer be the need to pay £400 per month per property so the council can hire a load of middlemen to manage the social stock.

Why would you object to making 2 million household owners rather than renters? Why would you object to a few billion off the housing benefit bill?

Point 1 - I object to both. No one person should receive a windfall from the public purse simply because they were in the right place at the right time. The public purse should treat everyone equally. Buying a house, or indeed, giving a RTB discount to one person / family does absolutely nothing for those other families behind them requiring help.

Point 2 - You appear to be looking at this in isolation. Benefit claimants are not a static pool of people. It's a fluid pool. You take one person out of housing benefit and 2 others sign up.

There's only way long term way of reducing housing benefit (other than simply reducing it or axing it) and that's to own the assets instead of renting them.

Blimey - you go on enough yourself that it's better to own than rent.

I have no issue with the council buying houses. I do take issue when it's instantly gifted to someone as if they have just won a housing lottery.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Point 1 - I object to both. No one person should receive a windfall from the public purse simply because they were in the right place at the right time. The public purse should treat everyone equally. Buying a house, or indeed, giving a RTB discount to one person / family does absolutely nothing for those other families behind them requiring help.

Point 2 - You appear to be looking at this in isolation. Benefit claimants are not a static pool of people. It's a fluid pool. You take one person out of housing benefit and 2 others sign up.

There's only way long term way of reducing housing benefit (other than simply reducing it or axing it) and that's to own the assets instead of renting them.

Blimey - you go on enough yourself that it's better to own than rent.

I have no issue with the council buying houses. I do take issue when it's instantly gifted to someone as if they have just won a housing lottery.

but they won the housing lotto when the council gave them the £400 a month flat that costs everyone else £2000 a month.

There needs to be a way to sell down the social stock in London.
Probably the most realistic way is to sell it down as they become vacant but that would be quite slow and inefficient.

If we must keep people dependant on the state then a £400k flat can be sold in hackney and a replacement bought in stoke or birmingham or someone else quite affordable

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

but they won the housing lotto when the council gave them the £400 a month flat that costs everyone else £2000 a month.

How does an owned asset cost the rest of us £2,000 a month?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How does an owned asset cost the rest of us £2,000 a month?

via lost income.

its almost criminal and close to mäfia style economics and governence. the corrupt officials lend out factories or money or goods or labour at pennies to the pound to their chums

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

If I own a company and that company owns a car outright and thus it can rent it to me for virtually nowt and I do that, guess what happens?

Oooh, do tell.... what happens?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

via lost income.

Righty-o.

So your solution is to buy a house (and take on all the costs associated with that) and simply hand it over in it's entirety to one single person / family.

And you somehow think that's better than perceived lost income?

!!!!! style economics? Blimey. Would you like a roll of tin foil?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oooh, do tell.... what happens?

I would be taxed on it as a benefits in kind which shows that the government and business and anyone with a brain understands that giving something away for below its market price is a transfer of wealth and an argument of "well we own it outright it costs us nowt" only works with imbeciles

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

I would be taxed on it as a benefits in kind which shows that the government and business and anyone with a brain understands that giving something away for below its market price is a transfer of wealth and an argument of "well we own it outright it costs us nowt" only works with imbeciles

So your plan to buy and give away houses.....

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Righty-o.

So your solution is to buy a house (and take on all the costs associated with that) and simply hand it over in it's entirety to one single person / family.

And you somehow think that's better than perceived lost income?

!!!!! style economics? Blimey. Would you like a roll of tin foil?

well maybe the government should set up me a nice car factory for £10B all paid and then rent it out to me for two shillings a week theres nothing wrong with that.


My point with the give houses away for free bit was to try and show that its in some cases cheaper to do that than to carry on as is. of course you could argue that its better to just change the as is by kicking out the tenants in the expensive parts and selling up but you concentrate on the other half of the equation i tried to put in there to appease people like you who cry with one breath that prices are unaffordable and then cry with a second breath that councils letting homes in the centre of London for free to pensioners and the unemployed is the highest of moral imperatives for a civilised nation.