renting out a rtb council house

Ozzuk

I see it as giving people a chance at owning property and gives them choices they wouldn't otherwise have. They may choose to forever rent, they may choose to dispose and cash in, they may choose to rent it out.

Who is anyone to judge someone in that situation, effectively seeking to remove their choices? Of course at times it will be abused, but that shouldn't mean the choice is removed from everyone.

Cakeguts

Ozzuk wrote: »

I see it as giving people a chance at owning property and gives them choices they wouldn't otherwise have. They may choose to forever rent, they may choose to dispose and cash in, they may choose to rent it out.

Who is anyone to judge someone in that situation, effectively seeking to remove their choices? Of course at times it will be abused, but that shouldn't mean the choice is removed from everyone.

If someone buys a council house to live in then there isn't much difference to them carrying on living there as a secure tenant. What I personally object to are the people who could afford to buy on the open market but buy a council house and then immediately sell it. When they do that they deprive someone who needs somewhere to live from getting that house just so that they themselves can get the discount. This is the main reason why I think that right to buy should be stopped unless people who want to sell have to sell back to the council with the same discount to market prices as they got when they bought it. That way everyone's choices are preserved. You can still buy if you want to but you cannot make a profit from the discount. Being able to make a profit from the discount is the main problem with right to buy.



People who buy a council house in order to get the discount so that they can sell it are exploiting the poor in the same way as some people complain about bankers and fat cats doing. There is no difference in attitude between these two sets of people. Everytime you see an ex council house for sale you can guarantee that most people have bought it to sell on and make money. If they hadn't they would have bought on the open market. The only people who haven't done this are the ones who are still living in the council properties they have bought.

AdrianC

Cakeguts wrote: »

If someone buys a council house to live in then there isn't much difference to them carrying on living there as a secure tenant.

Except for the minor detail that they no longer need that secure tenancy, and are depriving somebody who does of the chance that they had.

What I personally object to are the people who could afford to buy on the open market but buy a council house and then immediately sell it.

They'd have to be playing a very long game - they'd have to have been a tenant there for a very long time, and they'd have to keep it for years after purchase before the discount stopped being reclaimable.

Comms69

Ozzuk wrote: »

I see it as giving people a chance at owning property and gives them choices they wouldn't otherwise have. They may choose to forever rent, they may choose to dispose and cash in, they may choose to rent it out.

Who is anyone to judge someone in that situation, effectively seeking to remove their choices? Of course at times it will be abused, but that shouldn't mean the choice is removed from everyone.

Well given these are state subsidies - anyone with a vote in effect can pass judgment

ripplyuk

Comms69 wrote: »

Prison was not intended as the punishment when it was created; things change.

I’m curious. What was it intended as?

Comms69

ripplyuk wrote: »

I’m curious. What was it intended as?

Prison was in essence remand. Until a judge would arrive to hear the case.


So in my area that happened twice a year, and if you were caught just after the judge left, you'd be waiting in prison for 6 months just for the trial.


You also had to pay the jailor for your time there. Whether that was food, drink or accommodation.


Once you had been found not guilty, or otherwise punished, you were free to leave.... except if you didn't pay the jailor he would put you in debtors prison.


So people could spend their whole lives in prison for minor offences.


Prison became the punishment, in essence when we stopped exporting criminals.

AdrianC

Comms69 wrote: »

Prison became the punishment, in essence when we stopped exporting criminals.

...or hanging them.

Also - the stocks, hard labour, etc.

Comms69

AdrianC wrote: »

...or hanging them.

Also - the stocks, hard labour, etc.

Indeed I meant more as a time reference

seven-day-weekend

AdrianC wrote: »

Except for the minor detail that they no longer need that secure tenancy, and are depriving somebody who does of the chance that they had.



They'd have to be playing a very long game - they'd have to have been a tenant there for a very long time, and they'd have to keep it for years after purchase before the discount stopped being reclaimable.

Why should people with decent savings and/or income not need a secure tenancy? Are only poor people entitled to security of tenure?

Comms69

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why should people with decent savings and/or income not need a secure tenancy? Are only poor people entitled to security of tenure?

No-one should be entitled to a secure tenancy.