BritPat Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Housing benefit serves the same purpose as social housing, we do not need both. You advocate selling off the social housing stock to private landlords who will either force more money out of the housing benefit pot or price the housing out of reach of those who rely on housing benefit. LibLabCon will probably go for that policy, they do like a property development on the side don't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 No, I didn't advocate anything, please don't make things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Why do you think that? How else can you get on the housing ladder without having to save up for a deposit? If you're about to say "because you pay rent as well as have a mortgage" then you should obviously be aware that you only pay rent on the equity that you don't own. The total amount paid tends to be less than the market rent for a similar property and you can up your equity stake at any time. And you don't need a deposit. I can't see the problem with them. We all know what happens when people are seduced into 'buying a house without a deposit' it generally means they can't afford it. We then get junk mortgages thrown at the poor and sold as investments. That could lead to all sorts of disasters ! Wait a minute it already has, I believe the crap mortgages caused the Global Economy to stall, The Irish are being bailed out as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Housing benefit serves the same purpose as social housing, we do not need both. We do need a combination of them. We need social housing to house people as the private sector does not build enough. We need housing benefit in some shape or form to 'cover the rent' of social housing. We can't be giving housing out for free. Likewise we can't be using housing benefit to house people in ex-council houses bought with a mortgage at the top of a housing boom, when they could be housed nextdoor or nearby in a similar property for half the price (even though the rent has risen above inflation YoY for a decade). A few hours of community work to cover the housing benefit would be an idea for unemployed social tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 No, I didn't advocate anything, please don't make things up. Ok then. Housing benefit but no social housing stock, you may enlighten one and all re how you see that developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Why do you think that? How else can you get on the housing ladder without having to save up for a deposit? If you're about to say "because you pay rent as well as have a mortgage" then you should obviously be aware that you only pay rent on the equity that you don't own. The total amount paid tends to be less than the market rent for a similar property and you can up your equity stake at any time. And you don't need a deposit. I can't see the problem with them. Who in their right minds wants to buy half a house and rent half a house. It would make more sense to buy a flat, and rent a flat. At least then if you miss the rent you don't get evicted from the flat your buying. At least you can sell the flat on. Nobody wants to buy half a house tied to a rental contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 We all know what happens when people are seduced into 'buying a house without a deposit' it generally means they can't afford it. We then get junk mortgages thrown at the poor and sold as investments. That could lead to all sorts of disasters ! Wait a minute it already has, I believe the crap mortgages caused the Global Economy to stall, The Irish are being bailed out as we speak. If banks continue to give out mortgages to those who cant afford them then that is their problem. A deposit does not give automatic guarantees of repayment! When I got mine last year, the bank demanded three years of payslips and a copy of my work contract, a years worth of bank statements, proof of previous successful payment of rent and a long interview before agreeing to the mortgage. If there was any way I could not afford it then they wouldn't have released the funds. Not to mention the fact that the situation is totally different because since you are only buying 50% of a property which is worth, say, £130k which means that you only need to borrow £65k, making it far more managable for people on lower incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 If banks continue to give out mortgages to those who cant afford them then that is their problem. A deposit does not give automatic guarantees of repayment! When I got mine last year, the bank demanded three years of payslips and a copy of my work contract, a years worth of bank statements, proof of previous successful payment of rent and a long interview before agreeing to the mortgage. If there was any way I could not afford it then they wouldn't have released the funds. Not to mention the fact that the situation is totally different because since you are only buying 50% of a property which is worth, say, £130k which means that you only need to borrow £65k, making it far more managable for people on lower incomes. Don't take it personally, I'm not having a pop at you. It never is the banks problem though is it ! The banks balance on the brink of collapse and the poor pay to bail them out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 We do need a combination of them. We need social housing to house people as the private sector does not build enough. We need housing benefit in some shape or form to 'cover the rent' of social housing. We can't be giving housing out for free. Likewise we can't be using housing benefit to house people in ex-council houses bought with a mortgage at the top of a housing boom, when they could be housed nextdoor or nearby in a similar property for half the price (even though the rent has risen above inflation YoY for a decade). A few hours of community work to cover the housing benefit would be an idea for unemployed social tenants. Why do we have to provide houses for people who can't pay for them and won't work to pay for them - what is wrong with building hostels? That would be cheaper per occupant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Who in their right minds wants to buy half a house and rent half a house. It would make more sense to buy a flat, and rent a flat. At least then if you miss the rent you don't get evicted from the flat your buying. At least you can sell the flat on. Nobody wants to buy half a house tied to a rental contract. Your response makes it clear that you dont know what these schemes involve, or how they work, yet you have the audacity call people "fools" for wanting to join the scheme. They are designed for people who cannot afford to buy a house, yet can afford to pay something towards the house, and increase payments later as and when the situation arises. They are not designed for people lucky enough to be able to splash out £120k+ on a house, but those on an income of between £20 and £35k per annum, whose only other option is to throw money down the drain renting privately. At least this way the vast majority of your expenditure (roughly 75% on a 50% share) goes towards paying off your mortgage. Im not sure how your analogy about flats works. Can you explain? Flats do not cost half what houses cost these days, but nearly the same, and even if they did you again miss the point that these schemes are for people who cant afford a fortune. And you are simply wrong about finding it difficult to sell one of these properties on. For a start, you can purchase the freehold at anytime when you up your payments to 100%, therefore releasing yourself AND the property from the rental contract and for another thing there is a large waiting list of people wishing to buy one of these houses anyway! These schemes do not suit everyone, but that is the point. Getting on the housing ladder is exceedingly difficult these days, shared ownership is just one way of making it easier for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.