Right to Buy - Unethical/Sinister change?

sevenhills

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

So where do you think the subsidy for right to buy ultimately comes from? We are talking solely about RTB subsidies here. not ongoing rental, which is an entirely different matter.

When council houses are built, they are built on land owned by the Government/Queen/Council, so the value of the land can be £1 or £1 million.
So really, the people own the land.

BJV

sevenhills wrote: »

I am buying my council house, it was built in the 60s, when it would have been worth much less than the £65,000 discounted value that I am paying.

Ok, I have just bought a house and paid a lot more than the couple of hundred pounds it cost to build when it was built in 18???.

That is inflation, that is house prices, that is the cost of living, that is the way of life.

I bet the house is worth more than the £65,000 that you are buying it for on the open market?

The system of RTB exists and it is a good system. It should not however be open for abuse. Not saying that is always the case but it does happen.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sevenhills wrote: »

When council houses are built, they are built on land owned by the Government/Queen/Council, so the value of the land can be £1 or £1 million.
So really, the people own the land.

Yes, so selling it off at less than its value means the taxpayer is losing money. If we want to build another house to replace it we have to buy land at its market value to do so.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sevenhills wrote: »

I am buying my council house, it was built in the 60s, when it would have been worth much less than the £65,000 discounted value that I am paying.

How is this in any way relevant?

Vectis

Well, the op will be well pleased with the reaction he got. Probably made his day. So many of these RTB posts are a wind up, yet people still fall for them.

sevenhills

BJV wrote: »

The system of RTB exists and it is a good system. It should not however be open for abuse. Not saying that is always the case but it does happen.

It had the advantage of gaining votes for the Tories, who wouldn't vote for a £25k+ handout?

We dont have the same issue with large council estates, things are more mixed, and we have fewer council houses to sell.
So the policy is now less popular.

sevenhills

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Yes, so selling it off at less than its value means the taxpayer is losing money. If we want to build another house to replace it we have to buy land at its market value to do so.

Giving people £25k+ is rather exceptional, but some families with children get more than that in benefits every year.
In my case it was £35k discount.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sevenhills wrote: »

Giving people £25k+ is rather exceptional, but some families with children get more than that in benefits every year.
In my case it was £35k discount.

I am saying that there is a taxpayer subsidy. You seem to be accepting that and trying to justify it. I haven't argued that it's unjust. I could, but I haven't, so why do you keep saying these things to me?

Norman_Castle

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Yes, so selling it off at less than its value means the taxpayer is losing money. If we want to build another house to replace it we have to buy land at its market value to do so.

Who is "we"? Are you a council? If the council want to build another council home they will fund it through a loan which will be repaid through rental income. It will be self financing. How does this involve you?

Lord John Bird, founder of the Big Issue recently commented about a documentary about rtb. He said, "The film shows a world divided into victims and rescuers. Most of the people in the film who spoke about the problems of housing were speaking as “rescuers”: they don’t live in the property, but they appoint themselves as knights in shining armour. I want to help the poor get away from this self-indulgent lot, always going on about rescuing them."

This makes a lot of sense to me. There is a condescending attitude towards social housing and social housing tenants and, as shown on this forum, many believe they are a form of shareholder in council houses which they are not.

Guest101

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Who is "we"? Are you a council? If the council want to build another council home they will fund it through a loan which will be repaid through rental income. It will be self financing. How does this involve you?

Lord John Bird, founder of the Big Issue recently commented about a documentary about rtb. He said, " The film shows a world divided into victims and rescuers. Most of the people in the film who spoke about the problems of housing were speaking as “rescuers”: they don’t live in the property, but they appoint themselves as knights in shining armour. I want to help the poor get away from this self-indulgent lot, always going on about rescuing them."

This makes a lot of sense to me. There is a condescending attitude towards social housing and social housing tenants and, as shown on this forum, many believe they are a form of shareholder in council houses which they are not.

I think that social housing should be temporary, means tested and never taken from public ownership.