We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Right to Buy - Unethical/Sinister change?
Comments
-
I think that social housing should be temporary, means tested and never taken from public ownership.
Why? People are just asking for more freebies!!
If you lived there for over certain number of years and if you want to buy it then so be it!
Buying from council/housing you are helping them! That money goes towards the development of the community of new houses!
Freebie culture is a bad thing!0 -
Why? People are just asking for more freebies!! - Indeed. It's a flawed system. Social security, as it was, was a safety net, not a lifestyle.
If you lived there for over certain number of years and if you want to buy it then so be it! - Well that's the debate. you saying so be it, isn't a very informative point of view. I could as easily say - kick them all out, if they freeze, so be it. (im not saying that by the way)
Buying from council/housing you are helping them! That money goes towards the development of the community of new houses! - That's just rubbish. The money is not sufficient to replace like for like. there is a shortage of social housing for two reasons - 1: is below market rent and 2: is the RTB.
Freebie culture is a bad thing!
When relying on the state becomes the norm, there will always be division.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »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?
The tax payer may be losing money by giving such a large discount, but I am not aware that the tax payer would make a loss.0 -
-
Councils have funds for new properties despite only being allowed to keep a proportion of the sales revenue, the government takes the rest, but are only allowed to fund 30% through rtb receipts. They are also restricted on what they can borrow.Buying from council/housing you are helping them! That money goes towards the development of the community of new houses! - That's just rubbish. The money is not sufficient to replace like for like. there is a shortage of social housing for two reasons - 1: is below market rent and 2: is the RTB.
Example. https://www.southampton.gov.uk/moderngov/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=698- The council has significant funding available from Right to Buy receipts. This money needs to be spent within 3 years of receipt, otherwise receipts must be paid to the Government, with interest.
- These receipts can only be used to fund new affordable housing. The RTB receipts can only comprise 30% of the total cost.
- If the council were to build affordable homes itself then it would need to find 70% of the cost. The council’s Housing Revenue Account has limited borrowing headroom available to contribute the additional 70% required.
- Full consideration will be given to the council using future RTB receipts towards funding new affordable council homes as part of the Townhill Park regeneration
- Funding Registered Providers (RPs/ housing associations) would provide affordable housing without the need for the council to fund the other 70%, helping the HRA’s cash flow.
0 -
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.
Eh? Yes, I'm a council. So are you. So is everybody. Their money is my money. Where do you think council funding comes from?
There will be interest on that loan, if they do get a loan, which they don't becuase the shortfall is too great.. If they didn't sell the housing off in the first place the council, which is me, and you, and everybody, would have more money. If it works as to your scenario; the gainers are the banks making the loan and the person buying the house; everyone else loses.
John Bird is an !!!!!!.0 -
Why?sevenhills wrote: »Are people poor on a temporary basis? Our country is the 5th richest, can we afford something a little better?
Why should state support be a lifestyle? People are poor either by circumstance or by choice.
Why should I be paying to support those who choose not to support themselves.0 -
Why?
Why should state support be a lifestyle? People are poor either by circumstance or by choice.
Why should I be paying to support those who choose not to support themselves.
There are quite a lot of people that need support. People that have had workplace accidents or road accidents for instance; amputees and people in wheelchairs.
I dont pay much income tax because I earn less £20k, but that does not stop me from putting £1 in a collection tin. How much tax should someone earning £200k pay?0 -
sevenhills wrote: »There are quite a lot of people that need support. People that have had workplace accidents or road accidents for instance; amputees and people in wheelchairs. - totally agree, those are people on benefits by circumstance, which I already said is fine.
I dont pay much income tax because I earn less £20k, but that does not stop me from putting £1 in a collection tin. How much tax should someone earning £200k pay?
£75,800 per year (some fluctuation of course for pension and possibly student loans)
I don't see the relevance though?0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards