Henrietta Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Just wanted to pedantically pick up on this post, which confuses cash with profit. Unfortunately right-to-buy sales were undertaken at prices significantly less than value, so was a significant LOSS. Appreciate your point, but while they sold at lower than market value, surely the 'profit' would have still have been considerable due to their initial outlay being forty odd years ago IYSWIM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Appreciate your point, but while they sold at lower than market value, surely the 'profit' would have still have been considerable due to their initial outlay being forty odd years ago IYSWIM When it comes to property accounting, any decent accountant would be revaluing the properties and taking that into the assets in the balance sheet. Any property sold at less than this would then generate a LOSS on the transaction, taking into account of course that PROFITS would have been accrued up to that point. Ignoring my pedantry for a moment, and taking into consideration that right-to-buy would have generated lots of CASH, your statement "if the government had rebuilt on the profit of right-to-buy sales there would be no lack" still doesn't make sense in relation to the politics at the time. Right-to-buy properties were sold at a significant discount to market value. A colleague of mine bragged about getting his for less than half the market value recently, because he was in the armed services he was entitled to even extra discount. I suspect that many/most were offloaded at less than rebuild cost, so any CASH received would not be sufficient to build another one. Either right-to-buy was a good idea, in that it removed people out of social housing, the liability to look after their housing needs and maintain the properties, or it was a bad idea. Even if it was a good idea, to then imagine that for every 10 properties they sold they should have used that CASH to then build another 9 would clearly have proved that it had been devised from the politics of the loony asylum. I think it was a very bad idea btw, so I do understand your sentiments. Edit: Just thinking that what I've just typed might not make sense, as usual. So what I'm trying to say is that nobody in their right mind would divest 25% of something and then reinvest 10% into the same. It would be much more efficient to simply divest 15% in the first place. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss burger Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I can see where you are coming from, but why have so many kids? 3 bed council houses are usually quiet large, did it have a seperate dining room? Large lounge? All these could be made into bedrooms. And your saying the smallest bedroom wouldn't fit a bed? a single? I cant see that being correct, I know there are some small rooms but creating a bedroom that wont fit a bed is just daft. i have three and at the time we could afford them but the recession has hit hard and my partner has had to take a pay cut. no dining room, lounge fair the bathroom was tiny and the property i turned down was back on property shop and some one i knew bidded for it they only have one child and they turned it down. i dont see why the housing dont turn it in to a two bed house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 i have three and at the time we could afford them but the recession has hit hard and my partner has had to take a pay cut. no dining room, lounge fair the bathroom was tiny and the property i turned down was back on property shop and some one i knew bidded for it they only have one child and they turned it down. i dont see why the housing dont turn it in to a two bed house Your case is totally different in eveyway to the ones that pee me off, my gripe is with the people who purposley pop kids out knowing full well they have no way to pay for them through gainful employment, then expect the council to bend over backwards for them and knock a few houses together to accomodate their needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss burger Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 tell me about it as i know smoeone claming benifts who has six kids and in a 3 bed they are wanting to up grade to a 4 and what about those people who have sold there house and then got one of the council its just not fair i.e my neighbours have sold 2 houses and then got a council house why didnt they just buy another house:mad::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I know someone who sold up to buy a council house, as he couldn't afford his mortgage any more, after he paid off the mortgage, he didn't have enough left for another house x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 depands , i have 2 children and had then when i moved in to my 2 bed house and now my littel girl is tuning 10 i need a 3 bed as she can no longer shair with brother. And of course you have the right to anything that you ask for, do you pay any rent, community charge and gas/electric by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 RE the post quoted above by Crookesey.... Is the children over 10 not being able to share with siblings of the opposite sex actually a legal requirement (to prevent incest, for example) or is it just a council 'you are entitled to a bigger house because...' type rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss burger Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 And of course you have the right to anything that you ask for, do you pay any rent, community charge and gas/electric by the way? by law you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss burger Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 sorry children pressing keys as i was saying children over 10 cannot share a room with younger children of different sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.