Opinion on Right to buy

James_Green_1982

Davesnave wrote: »

That's a political question. The Tories introduced it, believing that home-owning people would tend to espouse Tory values, but when Labour were in power, they didn't remove it. Some might say that was because Tony & Co were just 'Tory-light.'


Anyway, you can see that it's properly a question for the 'Debate...' board. Just by saying this I'll probably have annoyed someone, ruining the peace and harmony that usually prevails here....

Yes. It is. That's why the regular poster has needed to set up a new user account to post it - as their last attempt was removed.

James_Green_1982

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Renting can be considered dead money compared to buying. Mortgage payments are an investment which can be recovered but rent is spent money. Repairs are normally cheaper than rent when averaged over time. A secure tenancy and the possibility to move if needs change is good but there will be very limited choices of available properties compared to the open market.


Remaining as a social housing tenant is ideal for some but for others buying is better.

That's the essence of it really. Each circumstance is individual.

Cakeguts

My feeling about this is that if someone buys a property under Right to Buy if they then sell it at anytime in the future they should have to repay the percentage discount that they received back to the council. I feel that there should be no time limit on this.

James_Green_1982

Nullboris wrote: »

RTB is wrong and should be stopped . It was a stunt , that perfectly suited MT , turning, supposedly, labour voting TENANTS , into tory voting OWNERS. (max discount 70%) Councils were not allowed to use ANY of the money to build new council houses, so it helped to lower council taxes (while gov slashed central grants to councils).
HTB is wrong and should be stopped . This is a sop to their construction co buddys who will contribute muchly to party coffers and possibly offer the odd directorship or consultancy to aged Politicos.
It keeps prices inflated a ta time when they are too high, also.
Oh and why would anyone buy a council house ? Up to 70% discount , then sell on, and re-locate, get another council house , rinse and repeat .... (not everyone)

That was the short term political advantage.
Longer term it had the effect of increasing general levels of home ownership among the working classes. This creates a more compliant population, as individuals feel they have more to lose. It reduces industrial action and rent strikes etc. Rent strikes are easier to organise and support when concentrated in certain areas. It also means that the courts and policing systems (which are usually organised locally in the UK) can be put under more pressure by any actions.

Today, the private rental market is dispersed geographically and comprises many small landlords. Any large scale rent strike would be harder to organise and support. Plus the police and courts would find it easier to handle the evictions.

James_Green_1982

Davesnave wrote: »

That's a political question. The Tories introduced it, believing that home-owning people would tend to espouse Tory values, but when Labour were in power, they didn't remove it. Some might say that was because Tony & Co were just 'Tory-light.'


Anyway, you can see that it's properly a question for the 'Debate...' board. Just by saying this I'll probably have annoyed someone, ruining the peace and harmony that usually prevails here....

That's true.
It also had the effect of reducing a society of wages being paid in rent, to one of individuals becoming indebted to banks. The banks created digital fiat currency for loans and and a credit culture (together with ''credit scoring'' etc) grew to replace a savings culture.

The Tories were allied to the banking industry, so they made a lot of money for each other this way. That's where most of the money was made in the 1980s. The discounts on council house sales were a smaller distraction - with the advantage of dividing opinion among the public. Especially the less well informed ones.

James_Green_1982

Cakeguts wrote: »

My feeling about this is that if someone buys a property under Right to Buy if they then sell it at anytime in the future they should have to repay the percentage discount that they received back to the council. I feel that there should be no time limit on this.

That's because you fail to see the greater context of how this policy was enacted - and why.

Norman_Castle

Cakeguts wrote: »

My feeling about this is that if someone buys a property under Right to Buy if they then sell it at anytime in the future they should have to repay the percentage discount that they received back to the council. I feel that there should be no time limit on this.

That financially traps the buyer in that property. The intention of rtb is to increase home ownership. The vast majority of properties sold will fund the next purchase so the original rtb buyer will remain a home owner.

Norman_Castle

paddedjohn wrote: »

I own my own home, my kitchen is about 20 years old and due for replacement but it's me who will have to foot the bill.

People who rent pay for new kitchens indirectly through the rental payments. Your new kitchen is an investment in your property, a tenants new kitchen is an investment in their landlords property.

Cakeguts

Norman_Castle wrote: »

That financially traps the buyer in that property. The intention of rtb is to increase home ownership. The vast majority of properties sold will fund the next purchase so the original rtb buyer will remain a home owner.

If you buy a home you are a home owner. You are not obliged to sell it. If you sell one where the purchase has been subsidised by the tax payer you should have to pay the tax payer back that percentage that you were given. Lots of people get financially trapped in homes why should people getting Right to Buy homes at a discount be treated favourably when many of the taxpayer subsidising then aren't?

James_Green_1982

Cakeguts wrote: »

If you buy a home you are a home owner. You are not obliged to sell it. If you sell one where the purchase has been subsidised by the tax payer you should have to pay the tax payer back that percentage that you were given. Lots of people get financially trapped in homes why should people getting Right to Buy homes at a discount be treated favourably when many of the taxpayer subsidising then aren't?

It's the very existence of the discount which often enables the mortgage lender to lend.
If the discount needs to be repaid on sale, it's not really a discount. Because the bank (after a few years) would not be able to sell at closer to the market rate, should repossession be required.

Ease of repossession in UK law, is one of the reasons mortgage rates are kept low.