Bank repossessed houses - Our new Social Housing stock

When interest rates rise, along with the job cuts, we will see an increase in repossessions and property prices will fall. People are being repossessed currently, and some by, the banks we bailed out, RBS for example.

With such a lack of social housing across the country. I think its high time we increased the stock.

I want to see massive building programs to address the need and improve the future prosperity of our country, but these don't seem to be in the pipeline, yet.

Seeing as we bailed out the banks, we should repossess from them, the houses they repossess from the citizens of the state, the state that bailed them out.

What do you think?

When interest rates rise

If Merv the Swerve and the rest of the MPC were really serious about targeting inflation, IRs would have risen long ago.

They will resist rising IRs until events force them to.

If Merv the Swerve and the rest of the MPC were really serious about targeting inflation, IRs would have risen long ago.

 

They will resist rising IRs until events force them to.

They soon will.

The interest rate rise is imminent, house prices have fallen, NE has become a reality for many, repossession is rising, lower interest rates are a short team option, but they will only prolong the crash, maybe make it worse.

The newly homeless will create unprecedented demand upon the social housing stock.

Any house repossessed by a nationalised bank should become social housing stock. We could let them become renters overnight. The logistics of upheaval, eviction etc. have no benefits.

Those living beyond their means could be transferred to smaller properties. Those below, transferred above, with a higher and fairer rent.

Indeed the newly imposed benefit cap begs this question to answered too.

In London and the South East there are going to be thousands of people, the majority of whom are working, who will not be paid enough to be able to afford a house to live in. These people are doing jobs vital to our economy, such as nurses and cleaners, for whom living anywhere in the SE simply isn't going to be an option. We need to turn some of these repossessed homes into council houses and fast.

Who pays the subsidy once these houses become council properties?

Are you prepared to say: "You an have a house. It is a tied house. It goes with the job. If you leave the job, you have to give up the house."?

You'll end up in a deal of hurt if you try that one!

Perhaps you could say: "We have a National Health Service. That National Service provides medication, hospitals, surgical equipment etc. The staffing costs are paid by the local health service. - If you live in an area where housing costs are high and you want nurses and those nurses need enhanced pay to pay for somewhere to live, you (the local people) can provide that extra pay."

Wails of anguish? - Perhaps. Tough!

Those who work in private industry in areas where the cost of living is high demand - and get - enhanced pay. That pay is funded by those who employ them - the companies.

If people choose to live in expensive (housing cost) areas, why shouldn't they pay the cost of accommodation for their servants?

(those who serve them)

Just how is this barmy idea supposed to work?

A bank only repossesses a house to realise the value / loan and give the owner the difference back. Why would either of them give it away?

When interest rates rise, along with the job cuts, we will see an increase in repossessions and property prices will fall. People are being repossessed currently, and some by, the banks we bailed out, RBS for example.

 

With such a lack of social housing across the country. I think its high time we increased the stock.

 

I want to see massive building programs to address the need and improve the future prosperity of our country, but these don't seem to be in the pipeline, yet.

 

Seeing as we bailed out the banks, we should repossess from them, the houses they repossess from the citizens of the state, the state that bailed them out.

 

What do you think?

Do you mean that the government should start stealing property from private companies? (Even if partly state owned)

Or that the government should buy the houses from the banks at the market rate?

It'd cut the number of repossessions.

The interest rate rise is imminent, house prices have fallen, NE has become a reality for many, repossession is rising, lower interest rates are a short team option, but they will only prolong the crash, maybe make it worse.

House prices are higher than they were before the crash started (just).

NE is unlikely to be affecting very many at all, a tiny tiny percentage maybe.

Repossessions have stayed lower than expected throughout the housing bubble crash and recession.

Interest rates are probably going to stay low for some time yet.

 

The newly homeless will create unprecedented demand upon the social housing stock.

What newly homeless? The few who will be repossessed?

 

Any house repossessed by a nationalised bank should become social housing stock.

Why would they go to the bother of repossessing it if it won't recoup any money for them?

We could let them become renters overnight. The logistics of upheaval, eviction etc. have no benefits.

They do if you're a bank and you want your money back.