Housing Before BTL

wotsthat

michaels wrote: »

I can not understand the argument that selling someone an asset at 100k below its market value is terribly unfair but renting the same person the same asset at £1k per month below its market value for decades (obviously costing much more overall) is right and proper. Could those who argue this so strongly please explain their logic. Thanks

If we have a rent vs buying maths argument then one side of the debate will try and downplay housing equity but the moment it's suggested council houses be gifted then housing equity becomes the family silver.

I don't like either suggestion and would prefer council housing be sold off as it becomes vacant whilst simultaneously relaxing planning restrictions.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I can not understand the argument that selling someone an asset at 100k below its market value is terribly unfair but renting the same person the same asset at £1k per month below its market value for decades (obviously costing much more overall) is right and proper. Could those who argue this so strongly please explain their logic. Thanks

Giving an asset worth 100k to one person helps one person.

Sharing an asset between many people helps many people.

There are of course people who stay in social housing for decades, but that's not the norm and I think it's easier to talk of the norms.

Most use social housing for a period of up to 8 years. Stats have already been linked here to confirm this before now.

This whole argument is based on the idea that you stop spending (lets say £1k a month) and buy a house for 100k. But the problem here is that, in reality, it simply doesn't work like that.

The locality that demands £1k a month in rent won't have 100k houses available to buy.

The whole reason the welfare cap was blown and brushed under the carpet was that you couldn't turf a family out of an area should they have links to that area.

So we need to base the conversation on reality. Where you are paying £1k a month in social rent, house prices are more likely to be around 300k+.

Therefore, it's cheaper to provide the social housing. Plus is benefits more people should that house be used for 2,3,4 different families in it's lifetime.

There really is no point in comparing social rents in expensive areas with the cheapest houses in the North East. Reality trumps every fag packet calculation.

And anyway, who pays for the maintenance of this gifted house? Who pays the building insurance? Who pays for the new bathroom? The tenants? With what? You have removed their money.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

For a family of 6.5 (2 parents, 2 grand parents, 2.5 kids) if they move from x town to y they will take with them something like

0.17 NHS staff
0.15 Education staff
staff
0.20 construction and maintenance
0.30 wholesale and retail

and probably a lot more I have missed. With the state representing 40% of the economy then 40% of the jobs that move with the people will not be direct spending by the household but indirect jobs they do not pay for like schools and hospitals and roads and well you get the idea

So using your figures which are disputable to say the least 1 job will be created for every 10 people.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

So using your figures which are disputable to say the least 1 job will be created for every 10 people.

My figures from the ONS show that the NHS employs 7.4% of a person for a family of 7 (on a per capita basis).

That means the NHS employs one person per 95 people in the country.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

For a family of 6.5 (2 parents, 2 grand parents, 2.5 kids) if they move from x town to y they will take with them something like... .

What happened to other 2 grandparents? Are they dead?

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

My figures from the ONS show that the NHS employs 7.4% of a person for a family of 7 (on a per capita basis).

That means the NHS employs one person per 95 people in the country.

The NHS might well employ one person for every 95 but that doesn't mean that if you move 95 people from one area to another it will create 1 NHS job in that area. As an example some area have twice as many people per GP than others.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

So using your figures which are disputable to say the least 1 job will be created for every 10 people.

I do so love cells's cunning plans.

Put it this way. At present 7 people out of 10 have a job (of some kind). If you relocate those 10 people, and 1 job moves with them, then 6 of the will become unemployed.

I'm not convinced that's a goood idea.:)

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The whole reason the welfare cap was blown and brushed under the carpet was that you couldn't turf a family out of an area should they have links to that area.

So we need to base the conversation on reality. Where you are paying £1k a month in social rent, house prices are more likely to be around 300k+.

The current reality is crap - what's wrong with talking about a new reality?

Using your figures. We offer to gift our person a £100k house in Stoke. Then the £300k house is sold. The taxpayer is £200k up and saves £12k in paying rent. The person moving in has a job in London that supports the mortgage and is probably saving on commuting time and money. The person in Stoke gets a fresh start with the security of knowing their accommodation is sorted for life.

I actually object to paying £1k/ month on someone's rent with no end in sight as well as bunging them a house. However, there's very little difference between the two options in principle - both lottery winners - one is a lump sum and the other a monthly payout.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And anyway, who pays for the maintenance of this gifted house? Who pays the building insurance? Who pays for the new bathroom? The tenants? With what? You have removed their money.

They could get a job? If I didn't have a mortgage to pay I could quite easily bump along on minimum wage. How much do you pay on building insurance and maintenance each year - a lot less than you've got in mind for the gifted house I bet.

Why not bung the lottery winners an extra £3k/ year for 5 years as a moving in gift? More than cover it.

Of course, being the internet, we have to assume everyone housed by the grace of the state couldn't possibly work or get a new job.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The current reality is crap - what's wrong with talking about a new reality?

Because what you seem to believe is a "new reality" doesn't exist.

If you wish to discuss ideas and ideologies - then go ahead.

But pretending they are a "new reality" when it's anything but is absolutely pointless. Seriously, what's the point in arguing over a load of sums which are completely and utterly useless? For a start, you'd have to leave the EU if you want to force families and their children out of an area, out of schools, remove them from relatives and stick them up north. The very fact that you adamantly support the very system which stops you carrying out your pipe dreams is even more puzzling - but hey ho.

The welfare cap is a prime example of why the solutions put forward on this thread won't work. The welfare cap hasn't worked simply because you cannot do what you guys seem to be suggesting we do.

Therefore, it's merely an ideology. If that's what you want to talk about, then fine. Other people will stick to discussing what we can realistically do. So we'd probably be best trying to keep the fairy land arguments and reality arguments seperate - otherwise it simply turns into a point scoring game.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

So using your figures which are disputable to say the least 1 job will be created for every 10 people.

overall its roughly 1 job for ever 2 people.

Of course not all demand moves with people as it is not local demand but national.

So its just a question of how many of the 1 job for every 2 capital is local.

You could try go adding it all up, eg if the NHS employs 1.5 million people for 65 million population. Thats 1.5 staff for every 6.5 people. IF the education sector employs 0.5 million people for 15 million kids thats 0.5 staff for every 15 kids etc etc

Or you could try guess it, for instance I think two thirds of demand is local. Which means 1 job for every 3 capita. So a family of 6 creates demand for 3 jobs 2 of which is local and moves with them 1 of which is not local and stays put


once again, jobs are not a geographical feature of the landscape but move with people