Cyclone Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It would be much better if, rather than subsidize the property portfolios of private landlords, the money was used to build much needed new social housing. Social housing that was exempt from the Right to Buy legislation for say, 50 years, giving time for building costs to be fully covered. The problem is of course, is that many MPs own BTL properties (funded by you, the taxpayer) and have a vested interest in propping up the market. It's not difficult to work out the problem with this. If (using a figure chem1st used earlier) everyone gets £100/week HB, and the annual bill is £20 billion. That's £5200/year for someone claiming. Stop HB and for every person you now need to find a replacement house. Building a house, even on a large scale, affordable housing style costs significantly more than £5200, say, at least 10 times as much. So the cost in that year shoots up to 200 billion! And, you want to recoup the cost over the next 50 years, which means charging the tenants, who can't pay because previously they were claiming HB and now can't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 With RBS and others it would simply be repossession by the state. They steal via usury anyhow. 26m^2 containers, can be stacked, and joined to others. 3 of them would be bigger than the average UK new build home. Stamp scrip is different. We all ready printing 20 billion a year to pay the hosing benefit bill. No, that money comes from general taxation, it's not just printed by the government. The bank bailout was funded by printing money, which just devalues the currency against every other, thus causing inflation. If the state does it at a small profit to reinvest money into housing, its far different than debt based B2L using hb tenants to pay the rent. Not really, the money invested by the state has an opportunity cost (ie it could be earning interest), so the small profit by the state would probably be the same as the small profit made by the private investor. The key difference is that the risk is now born by the state instead of private individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyouus Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 abolish HB for private landlords. its an idea. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763489-40-percent-of-london-families-receive-housing-benefit.do do we create trailer parks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 do we create trailer parks? OP is all for modular pre-fabs so we'll have cabin-chavs rather than trailer-trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyouus Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 OP is all for modular pre-fabs so we'll have cabin-chavs rather than trailer-trash. another way would be to build homes according to population and the populations ability to pay. what the council rent? 2 bed £90 a week? HB allowance http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/benefits/local-housing-allowance#currentrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyouus Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 HB is tax payer money, it should be paid to social housing only. If it were its being reinvested into the system rather than given away. However we dont have enough housing stock in the social sector, due to lack of investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 With RBS and others it would simply be repossession by the state. They steal via usury anyhow. The government owns shares in the company - that does not mean it has direct access to the companies assets.The company is run by the board of directors for the financial benefit of it's shareholders which means they are legally obliged to get the best price possible for a repossessed property to mitigate any outstanding credit on the property. As for "stealing via usery" - are you for real!? 26m^2 containers, can be stacked, and joined to others. 3 of them would be bigger than the average UK new build home. But less robust, flexible and less energy efficient. In the long term you could quite likely end up paying more for a prefab than the equivalent brick and mortar property. You also haven't mentioned how you would work out where they were needed, get them there, sort out the services and stop them becoming new sink-hole estates. Stamp scrip is different. Not in reference to a government it isn't. Scrip works as a form of local currency. That may work in small amounts for small local businesses but it's isn't going to work in large scale where you are working with global businesses where they need their money to work everywhere. A UK scrip would be the same as a UK currency - apart from the fact that it can't be used overseas. We all ready printing 20 billion a year to pay the hosing benefit bill. No we don't - we raise it by taxation and borrowing. If the state does it at a small profit to reinvest money into housing, its far different than debt based B2L using hb tenants to pay the rent. If the state is hoping to replace the property then it will need to sell at a large profit. And as a sizable chunk of the UK income now comes from borrowing this would also be debt based construction the cost of which would have to be borne by either the renters, general taxation (much the same thing if the renters are on HB) or yet more borrowing. Are any of these remotely sustainable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 another way would be to build homes according to population and the populations ability to pay. Which you can't do. The cost of building a house will always have a fixed bottom line. If building a house is uneconomical because no-one will pay for it then it won't be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyouus Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Which you can't do. The cost of building a house will always have a fixed bottom line. If building a house is uneconomical because no-one will pay for it then it won't be built. true. and yet homes are needed by those who cant afford them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 true. and yet homes are needed by those who cant afford them. And realistically the only way to do that currently is to utilise the current housing stock - which means usually paying for the rent. It may not be a perfect system but is really the only option currently available. Part of the problem is our massive focus on London in the UK - if all the jobs are in the south east that is where everyone must move which means that more houses are needed which produces a scarcity of accommodation and so prices rise. If there were more jobs outside London then we could utilise more of the unocupied stock that is typically in places of low employment where people don't want to or can't live due to a lack of employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.