End the Right to Buy Now

dboswell

who else agrees with me that the right to buy is one of the most stupid and wreckless policies ever devised by the wackoes in charge.

It should be ended now for being unfair to:

a) councils and waiting tenants who are losing valuable housing stock and a place to live

b) the taxpayer being ripped off subsidising those that seem to think they have a right to short cut onto the property ladder.

END IT NOW

HeMan_3

I do agree with you very strongly on this!

poorbabe

.............. but surely those using the RTB are taxpayers?

I have to say that as a beneficiary of RTB via my mother 10 years ago, I can't knock the scheme completely but am saddened that it's resulted in a severe loss of council housing stock.

Rikki

I think the system is abused by people only having a council house for a few years and then buying. Renting with the sole purpose of buing it as soon as they can.

Those that have be council tennents in excess of twenty years it is a chance for them to buy the family home.

theGrinch

I agree it should be ended. the fact RTB may be taxpayers is irrelevant as it is basically a giant tax rebate for those lucky enough to benefit at the expense of others.

In fact the rules are so murky and confusing. I read a posting of someone here that was earning £20k pa and taking adavantage of the RTB, yet at the same time, I know many people earning less than £20k a year with no RTB and no state subsidy ever.

It seems ripe for milking.

Tee-Bhoy

Well Thatcher the milk snatcher is to blame for this,just trying to get votes,some people change overnight,they think they are "snobs" if they have bought their council houses.

One of my friends bought their parents house for £23000 and sold it for £127000 three years later,the biggest farce of all is that you can apply for another council house if you sell the council house you have bought.

SAHARA

Me and DH have just had to move into privately rented accomodation as we were in a council flat on the 3rd floor with a three year old and a baby. We triedto get a transfer or exchange and we were finding that the available properties were either other flats, or you had to be 40+ or 50+ to qualify. Most of the houses in our area have been bought, and the ones that haven't, when they come up, you have to bid on with your allocated points. We had 19, 10 for having children above ground floor level, and 9 for overcrowding. Houses go for 50 points plus. Its an absolute joke, and it wouldn't be hapening if councils were allowed to put the money they get from the sale of council houses back into building homes, but they're not (another one of Thatchers brainwaves) :mad: :mad:

michaels

So - the people who got there first step on the housing ladder via this scheme are just users are they. The areas improved because people who own their property take pride in it should have been left to rot? Tax payers should continue to pay so that Council Tenants can live on highly subsidised rents (once you have a council house you can keep it and continue paying one third to one half market rents even if you start earning a million quid a year)

However, couldn't agree more that the LA's should be allowed to take advatage of planning gain and invest the proceeds in replacing the lost stock.

SAHARA

michaels wrote:

So - the people who got there first step on the housing ladder via this scheme are just users are they. The areas improved because people who own their property take pride in it should have been left to rot? Tax payers should continue to pay so that Council Tenants can live on highly subsidised rents (once you have a council house you can keep it and continue paying one third to one half market rents even if you start earning a million quid a year)

Council housing, or affordable housing for that matter is rarer than hens teeth in my area. We are paying a sizable chunk of our joint income in rent, but we can't afford to buy as the most we seem to be able to borrow is about half of what the cheaper houses go for . So we're condemned to throw money down the drain on a property that we'll never have a stake in, even though the money we are finding in rent each month would easily cover a mortgage. Fair? I don't think so.

michaels

SAHARA wrote:

Council housing, or affordable housing for that matter is rarer than hens teeth in my area. We are paying a sizable chunk of our joint income in rent, but we can't afford to buy as the most we seem to be able to borrow is about half of what the cheaper houses go for . So we're condemned to throw money down the drain on a property that we'll never have a stake in, even though the money we are finding in rent each month would easily cover a mortgage. Fair? I don't think so.

Sorry - is the problem that you can't borrow the mortgage multiple you would like to? I ask as you seem to contradict yourself saying you can only borrow half what you need but also that your rent would cover the mortgage?

The reason council housing is more affordable is that it is subsidised by taxpayers. I know that to get a council house is in effect 'means tested' in that they are given out on a by need basis but those currently in council housing could be extremely well off - thus in many cases tax payers are subsidising the housing costs of those much richer than they are - is this fair?

The reason that property, whether to rent or buy, in many areas is so expensive is simply down to the price at which the number of people who want to rent/buy equals the amount of housing available. As everyone wants a house and is willing to spend a large proportion of their incomes on housing prices tend to go up a lot in popular areas (and if the only other options are living with the inlaws or commuting for hours at great expense then its not surprising). For most things like cars, when prices go up the manufacturers build more. With housing this can not happen easily as land is limited and planning restricted, thus prices have to go up a lot until enough people are put off.

Finally I don't see why people consider rent as dead money. In my road the rental for a house is less than the mortgage interest payment, thus renting is actually a good deal - yes you lose out on the possiblility of capital gains but that should not actually be a factor in making a housing choice, more rational would be to rent and speculate in property company shares if you want to bet on property prices.

Rave

I think the problem, as has already been stated, is not with the policy itself but with the rule that councils were (are?) not allowed to invest the money they receive in new housing. Utterly insane.