Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

It's reasonable or much less destructive to pay people a fixed amount for housing and let them purchase housing for their needs. In the same way its reasonable to give poor people money and let them choose where and what type of food to buy as opposed to having government run shops

Thats what housing benefit does, which has just lined the pockets of landlords. Thats a trabsfer of wealth to the wealthy. Since the state recognises housing benefit recipients need financial assistance, why not build social housing and have rent (and what would have been paid in housing benefit) go into council/central govt coffers instead? That money could be used to invest in social housing where its needed rather than going to people who have helped cause unsustainable inflation of house prices.

Rusty_Shackleton

ukcarper wrote: »

Have you ever been to central London where are they going to build them and who is going to pay for them. You seem to live in cloud cuckoo land.

Theres an awful lot of social housing in london, i dont think there would be a shortage if they seriously clamped down on illegal sublets, and lefty as i am, immigrants definitely shouldnt be housed anywhere near there. Why the hell should someone whos come to this country get to choose to be housed at public expense, in an area with shortages?! London councils have also been flogging huge quantities of social housing stock off, at a time where demand is high...thats just negligent.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

People above have been arguing there should be no social housing in zones 1 and 2! Thats a rather large area covering several boroughs, which some people would like to make the preserve of the rich. Id say im arguing against the point theyre making.

Why must you invent an extreme and fight against that?

I said there is no reasonable argument to be made as to why zone 2 London needs to have 50% social housing. No reasonable person can argue against that. Zone 2 need not be more than the national average of 17% so the properties there should be sold as they become vacant until it gets towards 17%

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Thats what housing benefit does, which has just lined the pockets of landlords. Thats a trabsfer of wealth to the wealthy. Since the state recognises housing benefit recipients need financial assistance, why not build social housing and have rent (and what would have been paid in housing benefit) go into council/central govt coffers instead? That money could be used to invest in social housing where its needed rather than going to people who have helped cause unsustainable inflation of house prices.

In a lot of the country its cheaper to pay private landlords housing benefit than it is to pay social landlords rent via HB

A private landlord charging £600pm pays 40-45% of that in income taxes
He paid stamp duty on purchase and he will pay CGT on disposal.
The social landlord might indeed charge less at £500pm but they pay zero taxes.

Also in some parts of the country, like stoke on Trent, houses are so cheap that the council could just buy existing home and rent them out socially. Should they do that. Why/why-not?

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Theres an awful lot of social housing in london, i dont think there would be a shortage if they seriously clamped down on illegal sublets, and lefty as i am, immigrants definitely shouldnt be housed anywhere near there. Why the hell should someone whos come to this country get to choose to be housed at public expense, in an area with shortages?! London councils have also been flogging huge quantities of social housing stock off, at a time where demand is high...thats just negligent.

London is building a lot more social housing than it's selling as half of all new builds need to be social. But the lines will never end just like inner London was 60% social 20% owner 20% rental and yet there were lines for more and more and social homes and lines of homeless and lines of people on B&Vs clearly more social doesn't solve those problems at all

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

I give you some credit for actually engaging in debate even if your views are totally devoid of actual thinking for yourself.

Think about these questions and get back to me

What is it that you feel social housing solves, are there other ways those problems can fully or partially be solved

What is the correct level of social housing? How much of the local stock should be social

If we had 'the correct amount of social housing' according to whatever figure it is you think is right why is it that areas which already exceed that figure still have the problems that council homes are supposed to address

Do you agree with me that 15 years ago just before the mass migration we had the closest to 'idea ' as we could with close to 70% ownership and 10% private rental. So 15 years ago we were as close to perfect as we have ever been.

-problem it solves is providing housing to the poorest and most vulnerable, who cant afford market rents or have special requirements that make the private sector inappropriate (people who are in sheltered accommodation). I think social housing, with stock replenished to replace those lost under right to buy, is the most efficient way of providing something too important to be left to the market.
- the correct amount is however much is needed to provide for those that meet the criteria, e..g under means testing or criteria such as victims of domestic violence. An arbitrary percentage as you have come up with would serve what purpose exactly? That would offer no flexibility up or down to meet additional societal needs or when demand goes down.
- i dont agree. Labour flexibility is lower with such a high number of owner occupiers for one. Im not sure of the stats and situations 15 years ago, but the situation now with so much public money wasted on housing benefit, and meeting statutory housing responsibility through the use of B&Bs is the worst idea going.

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

London is building a lot more social housing than it's selling as half of all new builds need to be social. But the lines will never end just like inner London was 60% social 20% owner 20% rental and yet there were lines for more and more and social homes and lines of homeless and lines of people on B&Vs clearly more social doesn't solve those problems at all

Do you have a source for london building more social housing than its selling off? Because ive seen numerous examples of council estates being sold where the replacement social housing allocation is a tiny percentage of those lost. Similarly, half of new developments need to be social housing? That sounds unbelievable.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Do you have a source for london building more social housing than its selling off? Because ive seen numerous examples of council estates being sold where the replacement social housing allocation is a tiny percentage of those lost. Similarly, half of new developments need to be social housing? That sounds unbelievable.

Look at the London plan its been 50% social for some time now. My council last time I checked they hit 49.9% social for all new builds. Probably a couple of self builders meant it was not exactly 50%

BobQ

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.

If you had read the relevant part of the thread you would see that is the point being made. You would not be allowed to apply an exclusion policy to all Asians etc, but some people think that its OK to exclude the poor from their inner London borough so that it remains unspoilt for them.

BobQ

GreatApe wrote: »

Look at the London plan its been 50% social for some time now. My council last time I checked they hit 49.9% social for all new builds. Probably a couple of self builders meant it was not exactly 50%

And the answer to the question asked is?