Housing Before BTL

wotsthat

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?

Your argument isn't many degrees removed from this. You just think you have a better way of transferring taxpayer money to rent seekers.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

would also be a waste of government money if the plan was to do that in isolation.

It was of course a way to try and address two problems. One thaat London is growing more rapidly than the rUK causing housing and infrastructure stress. and two that moving a Londoner social home tenant out of London and giving them a free house elsewhere is actually cheaper in the short medium and long term than continuing as is. of course probably the most 'fair' would be you could just kick that person out of the expensive inner London flat and give him a budget of £400 a month to go find housing somewhere which would likely mean moving to the Midlands or north. however my plan which is no more than a discussion here not a whitepaper, is probably more palatable for the person being moved and the general public who are mostly quite dim when it comes to MSE ideas and methods

cells

another idea is to transfer the social housing stock on an equity loan type arrangement minus a small RTB discount eg 20%

So on 01-01-2017 the social stock is sold to the sitting tenants with the government taking a 80% LTV first charge on the property. The tenants can then live there as long as they want and sell at any point they want (paying the government its 80%) and move into housing more suited to their needs.

5 million renter households would become owner households and medium to long term there would likely be a better outcome for all

ukcarper

So let's get this right you move all people out of social housing in London to cheaper part of the country does this include people. In social housing who are employed.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

So let's get this right you move all people out of social housing in London to cheaper part of the country does this include people. In social housing who are employed.

if they want to move out yes, there needs to be some incentive for most people

also something like 30,000 social homes become empty in London each year and are re-let by some form or another of lotto (with potential of the lotto administrators giving a few winning lotto tickets to their mates)

Those 30,000 empty a year could be sold off.

London has about 250,000 more social homes than rUK. That is to say if 250,000 social homes in London were sold off then London would have the same % of social homes as the rUK

ging84

I'm not sure how this is before BTL

As i understand it the BTL boom is a recent thing,

I don't think the houses bought by landlords during our last property boom are what took those people in the black and white photos out of squalor.


Was there a 70s BTL boom that i didn't know about?

Or were houses in the 70s mostly sold privately, often to people queuing round the block to sign up to buy newly released houses.
While the council built another million or so homes adding on to the 3 million or so they had built previously since the war for those who still couldn't afford even the modest deposit requirements.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

if they want to move out yes, there needs to be some incentive for most people

also something like 30,000 social homes become empty in London each year and are re-let by some form or another of lotto (with potential of the lotto administrators giving a few winning lotto tickets to their mates)

Those 30,000 empty a year could be sold off.

London has about 250,000 more social homes than rUK. That is to say if 250,000 social homes in London were sold off then London would have the same % of social homes as the rUK

What incentive would you offer and don't you think sending people to areas where there is a shortgage of employment will be detrimental to that area.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

What incentive would you offer and don't you think sending people to areas where there is a shortgage of employment will be detrimental to that area.

Employment (aka demand and supply) moves with people it isn't a geographical feature of the landscape

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Employment (aka demand and supply) moves with people it isn't a geographical feature of the landscape

How many jobs do you think unemployed people generate.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

How many jobs do you think unemployed people generate.

depends on the particular household and their spending habits rather than if they are employed or not.

An employed person on £100k a year subsisting in a HMO eating only bread and water wont create much local employment. While a single mother with 6 kids spending £40k a year into the local economy is likely to create more than one job. Actually probably more like 2 or maybe even 3 jobs if you take her kids into account (school, NHS services, etc)