Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

it does but it doesnt mean you have a lot of poor people living in social housing in zone 1/2. you can rehouse a lot of them further out to cheaper areas and they can commute into work (if they do indeed work).

Commuting cost are high when you are on low earnings and I see no reason why zone 1/2 should not have social housing.

vivatifosi

Here are today's Brexit headlines, there should be something in here for everyone:

Davis urges talks on withdrawal and trade at the same time:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/20/brexit-davis-urges-brussels-rethink-on-holding-withdrawal-and-trade-talks-at-same-time

Hard Brexit offers £135bn annual boost to economy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

British Brexit plan is more Blackadder than Machiavelli:
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/cliff-taylor-british-brexit-plan-is-more-blackadder-than-machiavelli-1.3190889

Britain not ruling out EU oversight of borders post Brexit:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-customs-idUKKCN1B0080

CKhalvashi

AFF8879 wrote: »

This argument makes no sense at all. Social housing tenants come from all races and backgrounds.

That said I don't agree with the forced migration of SH tenants to outer/cheaper areas. I DO think there needs to be sensible protocols applied to this type of housing however to ensure it's given to those who need it; not lifelong tenancies to those who happened to be lucky enough at the time. I can see why lifelong tenancies were introduced, and in certain places where population and property demand is not out of control, I think they can work well. But just not feasible in central London.

I agree and disagree with you.

The problem is that the discounts in London are huge. I've been buying increasing amounts of stuff on Gumtree recently and have noticed several times where someone is looking for a place with RTB in exchange for a place with RTA with 'incentives'. That is IMO clear abuse of the system and should be outlawed.

At the same time, I'd like to see private tenants given more protection and longer tenancies, with clear procedures and rules put in place for either side to end the agreement early.

I do agree that there shouldn't be lifelong tenancies, however in keeping with my views on the above for long term housing, I don't believe that forcibly removing someone from a property they live in, whether rented or owned, is the right answer either.

I'd be looking at going somewhere between the Secure Tenancy and the AST for private housing but I'm a lot more split on what to do with social housing.

Even a £100k joint income for a couple in London (it works out to about £6000 a month clear on a 40/60 split with 5% pension) doesn't go far for a couple with a child if they're paying £2k a month for a property. Student loan payments would bring that down to about £5400 a month clear, meaning you have a maximum of about £1500 left in a month to save a deposit, and with the cheapest 2 bed flat in the same area priced at £450k it's going to take a long time.

In reality if both are working in the centre of London then it would make better financial sense if renting privately to commute in from about an hour away, however if you're a couple on £9/hour (as many more people are than £100k couples) then your income will pay the same £2k rent, with about £400 left for council tax, bills, food etc. I know it's possible to live on that, but I wouldn't want to do so month in, month out.

If you're paying £500 a month from a £1200 clear salary to commute into London then you have no chance of building up a deposit, and if you're renting at £2k a month in London then you have no chance. This (for whoever complained there's 'too much' social housing in London) is the reason why actually there's nowhere near enough.

Rusty_Shackleton

AFF8879 wrote: »

This argument makes no sense at all. Social housing tenants come from all races and backgrounds.

That said I don't agree with the forced migration of SH tenants to outer/cheaper areas. I DO think there needs to be sensible protocols applied to this type of housing however to ensure it's given to those who need it; not lifelong tenancies to those who happened to be lucky enough at the time. I can see why lifelong tenancies were introduced, and in certain places where population and property demand is not out of control, I think they can work well. But just not feasible in central London.

Try replacing the words 'social housing tenants' with 'Jews' or 'blacks', then ask if anyone would dare raise such an idea as trying to get them out of entire boroughs.

Economic, whether somebody is working is irrelevant, if ithe area is their home we shouldnt be forcing them to move. If you had retired grandparents in zone 1,lived there for 50 years but are in social housing... Would you seriously argue its acceptable to force them to move because others have to commute in? That sort of command and control over housing is very soviet-esque, but youre okay with it as long as it only affects people poor enough to be in social housing.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Try replacing the words 'social housing tenants' with 'Jews' or 'blacks', then ask if anyone would dare raise such an idea as trying to get them out of entire boroughs.

Economic, whether somebody is working is irrelevant, if ithe area is their home we shouldnt be forcing them to move. If you had retired grandparents in zone 1,lived there for 50 years but are in social housing... Would you seriously argue its acceptable to force them to move because others have to commute in? That sort of command and control over housing is very soviet-esque, but youre okay with it as long as it only affects people poor enough to be in social housing.

I don't think people should be forced out of there home, but I don't think children should inherent their parents tenancy or that because you live in an area you should be offered a tenancy in that area by right. Many people who are not in social housing have to move from where they live to be able to afford property.

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

Agree with this and same here. My parents will leave me nothing. They never owned property. Though they came from prosperous backgrounds, they and my grandparents lost everything during the war (including many of their family). When they came here they lived in (by today's standards) incredibly hard conditions, which prevailed from the 50s to the late 70s for very many people, including indigenous Brits (e.g. three kids sharing one small room; paraffin heaters and no central heating; no hot water for quite a while; certainly no fridge, let alone a washing machine or dishwasher). (Though these conditions were, of course, better than those in previous decades to the 1950s, and stretching back into history.) Unlike many today, they didn't moan and bewail their lot, but got on with life and worked hard, generally in jobs that paid very little, and at a time when only a very small proportion of the population went to 'uni'.

Methinks that education is sadly lacking in some people – or perhaps they've just been brainwashed/refuse to check the evidence that is freely available to anyone with just a cursory check into social history, because this wouldn't chime with their own manufactured world view supporting their sense of entitlement. :cool:

Well said. Unfortunately many of the young today have no real idea of the past. They have this romantic view of an upper middle class 1960s lifestyle and think that was the norm rather than the top 5-10% only. Things have changed so much young people have no idea at all.

Also another silly modern notion is that women didn't work in the past. I don't know why it persists when you can just look at the old census figures which clearly show lots of women did work. Its as if the young think all women work today and none worked on the past.

The figures are actually 67% of women work today and 53% worked in 1971 that is for women aged 16-64. Obviously the biggest chunk of why 'more' women work today is that their retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 if you exclude that the gap is even smaller.

So the truth is the UK was much poorer fifty years ago the necessities of life were much more expensive. Homes were cheaper relative to income (but finance was more expensive) yet even though houses were cheaper far fewer people could actually afford to buy homes which is clearly shown by the fact that far fewer people did own their own homes back then. Work was often longer hours and harder and less safe. The young today really don't know how easy they have it, some of them spend 90% of theor work day in front of a computer on Facebook and forums lole this complaing how hard life is and how hood the oldies had it.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Try replacing the words 'social housing tenants' with 'Jews' or 'blacks', then ask if anyone would dare raise such an idea as trying to get them out of entire boroughs.

Economic, whether somebody is working is irrelevant, if ithe area is their home we shouldnt be forcing them to move. If you had retired grandparents in zone 1,lived there for 50 years but are in social housing... Would you seriously argue its acceptable to force them to move because others have to commute in? That sort of command and control over housing is very soviet-esque, but youre okay with it as long as it only affects people poor enough to be in social housing.

When did 'social housing tenants:' become a race?

And you don't need to force them out, about 4% of social tenants die or move on. You can sell the properties at that point. That would be a way to shrink the social housing stock.

Rusty_Shackleton

Im not saying social tenants are a race. Im saying everyone would recognise treating a specific race like that would be outrageous, why is it any less so to do it to the poorest in society?

And what about people born in those areas, where their entire life is based... What about when they need to move out of the family home? Do you think it would be right to force them, say, out of london entirely because they cant afford london rents? Do you know what, don't bother answering that, I know your answer, and its morally wrong when we could simply supply sufficient social housing (granted this has been made harder by the selling off and not replacing social housing, but there's no time like the present to start putting it right).

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im not saying social tenants are a race. Im saying everyone would recognise treating a specific race like that would be outrageous, why is it any less so to do it to the poorest in society?

And what about people born in those areas, where their entire life is based... What about when they need to move out of the family home? Do you think it would be right to force them, say, out of london entirely because they cant afford london rents? Do you know what, don't bother answering that, I know your answer, and its morally wrong when we could simply supply sufficient social housing (granted this has been made harder by the selling off and not replacing social housing, but there's no time like the present to start putting it right).

its morally wrong to use others peoples labour to pay for someone elses rent.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im not saying social tenants are a race. Im saying everyone would recognise treating a specific race like that would be outrageous, why is it any less so to do it to the poorest in society?

And what about people born in those areas, where their entire life is based... What about when they need to move out of the family home? Do you think it would be right to force them, say, out of london entirely because they cant afford london rents? Do you know what, don't bother answering that, I know your answer, and its morally wrong when we could simply supply sufficient social housing (granted this has been made harder by the selling off and not replacing social housing, but there's no time like the present to start putting it right).

People not in social housing have to do that all the time, I would have loved to live where I was born but I couldn't afford it and moved 20 miles away. I lived in council property with my parents until I got married, I had no expectations of getting council accommodation in that area.