spooky3 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Why would you spend your own money (especially on minimum wage) on improvements on a rented house? Pride ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 The Conservatives (and their predecessors) are trying to destroy social housing. Thatcher began the assault in the 80s by selling it off. Labour continued the assault by selling it off, knocking it down and doing it up ready for the next Conservative government. They are now selling it off and taking 100% of the receipts, increasing the rents, shortening tenancies. They are also trying to change the legal definition of homeless so they are not required to provide help to as many as they currently do. They are trying to set up a two-tier system for under and over 35s, exploiting the the demographic profile of the UK (less young people, more older people). With increased rents, limited tenancies etc. it will not be social housing. It's a disgrace. Nobody should vote for the Conservatives or Labour, nor the Condems. These MP's are exploiting peoples housing situations and the housing benefit situations that they control for their own personal private profit. We need a totally new government that is proactive when it comes to housebuilding. It may cost a little in the short term, but it is very beneficial in the long run. You only need to look at how housing has changed in Sheffield to see what a disgrace the system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 For me it's a two way split... I can look out my window and see new BMW's, Audi's, etc... I could ask, do they need subsidised housing, hmm maybe not (even though i'd also think and know in a few cases that some do own those properties). But when comparing my street with say another at the other end of the estate, the crime rate and goings on are very different. If this goes through will they turn into ghettos, well as already stated they are already sink estates in certain parts. Yes, it'd get slightly worse if working and respectable people were summarily ejected and replace with others further down on the ladder (in more need). But and this is the butt, what about all those who have bought their properties and worked hard to improve their areas, which many have and do. They'll be stuck amidst this worsening area, where without doubt the private property price will fall, meaning they'll lose money but still have to pay the banks the full mortgage! All said and done, when i'm back on my feet, i'm outta here! I live in S5 on a council estate, quite a few of the houses on my street (including mine) have been bought, so I suppose I would be in that situation if your scenario comes true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 So joe Bloggs gets a Council House when he's unemployed, he then gets a job on minimum wage and he manages to make a few improvements to the property. Gradually he starts to earn a bit more and he spends it on a few luxuries (maybe some on the house). Then the Government decides he should give up this house, where does he go to that won't make him poor again? He's earning more now, you said so, so he uses his higher income to secure a mortgage or rent privately. Someone who is still in the situation that he started in (unemployed) gets the council house that is now vacated. What's wrong with this sequence of events? Of course he won't make improvements to the council house, he knows it isn't his and that he will probably have to move on when his situation has improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Pride ? I would try to keep it tidy, decorating etc. but I would not do any major repairs. The advantage of renting is that someone else (landlord or council) is responsible for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Why would you spend your own money (especially on minimum wage) on improvements on a rented house? I wouldn't, when the council are supposed to do it for you. As far as I'm aware I don't believe Councils decorate or furnish properties, nor do they look after gardens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 The rents of social housing have been rising above inflation YOY for a while now. And they continue to do so. Inflation X% Wages X(-1)% Social housing X(+.5)% Every year, wages have been increasing less than inflation, rents have been rising more than inflation. There has been a sophisticated robbery of the people by the government. One which continues. 10 years ago, social housing would have taken up some 25% of the minimum wage wage Today its going on for 33%. The people in charge have demolished social housing whilst investing in Buy to let. Making sure they have a steady stream of customers who no longer have access to social housing. They use the (planned) lack of social housing and (planned) housing benefit levels to exploit the system for personal financial gain. They now complain housing benefit is too much (which it is, because of a lack of social housing). So they intend to reduce housing benefit and the entitlements. They aim to force people into sharing houses, @ a rate where housing benefit per room is greater than it was before, the HB bill shall rise even further, people will be crammed into homes like cash cows to make sure this happens. These people are a disgrace to society, they are parasitic in nature and rob the public at every chance. They should be locked up for their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 WHy should Joe Bloggs be treated differently to Fred Smith? Fred Smith lives privately rented accommodation. He manages to save some money and spends it improving the quality of his rented home. He has a short-term assured tenancy and his landlord gives him 6 months notice to quit. Where does he go that he can't be given notice to quit again? Thats true, renting privately is less secure in the long term. Don't most tenancy agreements only last a year? I have always aspired to own my own house, if I had to make use of council accomodation I would only see it as a temporary measure, and not a permanent solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Nobody should vote for the Conservatives or Labour, nor the Condems. We are in this state because of Labour. Please see point 3. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6911906&postcount=13 This is simple maths 1 on 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.