Home ownership vastly exaggerated.

[Cyclone]

So council housing is no longer affordable once it's sold on and is priced at it's real value.

 

The council should stop subsidising housing then and charge the market rate for it, it could use the profit to build more houses and help stop prices rising more.

[chem1st]

So council housing is no longer affordable once it's sold on and is priced at it's real value.

 

The council should stop subsidising housing then and charge the market rate for it, it could use the profit to build more houses and help stop prices rising more.

 

Prices have been forced to rise.

 

There is no free market in housing.

 

Prices have been forced to rise by QE and NIRP combined with tax breaks for buy to let (buy to let is a financial product invented in the late 80s to force prices to rise), channeling money into buy to let due to the tax breaks as it would otherwise be eroded in value by inflation.

 

Housing benefit/LHA sets a minimum price when combined with buy to let. Low interest rates have forced prices further.

 

A lack of housing has come about due to pathfinder demolition, increased (and encouraged) immigration. Restrictions upon building. Lack of council housing building over the past 30 years.

 

Planning and land prices (forced upwards by cap payments) have also forced up the cost of housing. Not to mention the boom of 2001 and 2007 due to loans upon property that did not require even proof of income. Higher multiples of income etc. etc.

 

Give back the commons and give men the freedom to build their own housing and houseprices will soon drop back down to a more natural level. Something along the lines of £40k for a 3 bed semi.

 

Oh wait, all the mortgage debt got bundled up, sold on and then classed as an 'asset'? Oh dear. If property prices fall the banks are broke. They don't want to let that happen do they.

 

Print print print, inflation inflation inflation. Where is all this unemployment coming from?

Oh dear.

 

"£100k house". £120k debt on it and £35k on the cc, with a mob of unemployed youths outside rioting and stealing tesco value batamati rice, don't thing that poor sod will be on £35k a year and able to afford a mortgage on your property. Besides, all the old people are trying to sell up, and there isn't enough youth to buy, and even if there were, they don't have jobs or money because every tom dick and harry invested into housing as 'housing only ever goes up' and not into productive businesses that create real wealth.

 

Usury and rentiership and some poor sod on the dole priced out of growing a potato.

 

Market rate, don't make me laugh, the market is fixed and prices are forced to be higher than what they otherwise would be.

 

The land monopolist benefit from this greatly, they also have a monopoly on currency. People have been emigrating and proposing land & monetary reform for centuries!

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So council housing is no longer affordable once it's sold on and is priced at it's real value.

 

The council should stop subsidising housing then and charge the market rate for it, it could use the profit to build more houses and help stop prices rising more.

Consider this, too: why does SCC need to subsidise rent, as long as those who cannot afford it receive HB/LHA?

[chem1st]

Consider this, too: why does SCC need to subsidise rent, as long as those who cannot afford it receive HB/LHA?

 

They do not subsidise rent, they subsidise landowners and property prices.

[I1L2T3]

So council housing is no longer affordable once it's sold on and is priced at it's real value.

 

The council should stop subsidising housing then and charge the market rate for it, it could use the profit to build more houses and help stop prices rising more.

 

There should not be a market value on these houses. They shouldn't have been sold off to begin with.

 

It was a stupid policy. Still is. But that's another debate.

[Cyclone]

I haven't though about it enough to really have an opinion.

Maybe if the money generated from sales had gone to building new council housing it might have worked.

[Cyclone]

Prices have been forced to rise.

 

There is no free market in housing.

 

Prices have been forced to rise by QE and NIRP combined with tax breaks for buy to let

There are no tax breaks, there are businesses paying tax as normal.

(buy to let is a financial product invented in the late 80s to force prices to rise)

So before the 80's there were no landlords or rental markets?

channeling money into buy to let due to the tax breaks as it would otherwise be eroded in value by inflation.

 

Housing benefit/LHA sets a minimum price when combined with buy to let. Low interest rates have forced prices further.

They've propped them up, they haven't increased them.

 

A lack of housing has come about due to pathfinder demolition, increased (and encouraged) immigration. Restrictions upon building. Lack of council housing building over the past 30 years.

 

Planning and land prices (forced upwards by cap payments)

You realise that agricultural land is still very cheap? It has no impact on the cost of housing.

have also forced up the cost of housing. Not to mention the boom of 2001 and 2007 due to loans upon property that did not require even proof of income. Higher multiples of income etc. etc.

That's where most of the HPI came from, lax lending, allowed by labour.

 

Give back the commons and give men the freedom to build their own housing and houseprices will soon drop back down to a more natural level. Something along the lines of £40k for a 3 bed semi.

Relax planning laws? Or do you mean that land should just be given away...

 

Oh wait, all the mortgage debt got bundled up, sold on and then classed as an 'asset'? Oh dear. If property prices fall the banks are broke. They don't want to let that happen do they.

No they aren't, the mortgages will still exist and still need paying, a house price fall wouldn't directly affect banks at all!

 

"£100k house". £120k debt on it and £35k on the cc, with a mob of unemployed youths outside rioting and stealing tesco value batamati rice, don't thing that poor sod will be on £35k a year and able to afford a mortgage on your property. Besides, all the old people are trying to sell up

No they aren't, the market is still really depressed

and there isn't enough youth to buy, and even if there were, they don't have jobs or money because every tom dick and harry invested into housing as 'housing only ever goes up' and not into productive businesses that create real wealth.

Hardly every tom, dick and harry

 

Usury and rentiership and some poor sod on the dole priced out of growing a potato.

Priced out of growing a potato, sometimes your logic escapes (me).

 

Market rate, don't make me laugh, the market is fixed and prices are forced to be higher than what they otherwise would be.

 

The land monopolist benefit from this greatly, they also have a monopoly on currency. People have been emigrating and proposing land & monetary reform for centuries!

There is no monopoly, millions of people owning bits of land and property is precisely the opposite of a monopoly.

[I1L2T3]

I haven't though about it enough to really have an opinion.

Maybe if the money generated from sales had gone to building new council housing it might have worked.

 

I agree the money should have been re-invested carefully. Perhaps it was in some council areas.

 

The thing about council housing is that we all paid for it, out of our taxes. We paid for it to be built and we subsidised the maintenance. It addresses a clear need that still exists now perhaps even more than ever - to house vulnerable people and those who couldn't afford to buy. It also helped with mobility of Labour. In my mind we lost much of a valuable social resource, sold off as a political vote winner at rock-bottom prices that didn't generate enough to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Now we have a situation where there is a crisis of social housing provision and we can't afford to lose any more stock. Thousands in every city are on the waiting list but a chosen few who are already in social housing and have the means will get to buy the chance to buy the house they live in. The result - less stock and more people forced into the private rental sector. Along with the rules announced last year about lessened security of tenancy this is privatisation of social housing by stealth.

[harvey19]

I agree the money should have been re-invested carefully. Perhaps it was in some council areas.

 

The thing about council housing is that we all paid for it, out of our taxes. We paid for it to be built and we subsidised the maintenance. It addresses a clear need that still exists now perhaps even more than ever - to house vulnerable people and those who couldn't afford to buy. It also helped with mobility of Labour. In my mind we lost much of a valuable social resource, sold off as a political vote winner at rock-bottom prices that didn't generate enough to replace the lost housing stock.

 

Now we have a situation where there is a crisis of social housing provision and we can't afford to lose any more stock. Thousands in every city are on the waiting list but a chosen few who are already in social housing and have the means will get to buy the chance to buy the house they live in. The result - less stock and more people forced into the private rental sector. Along with the rules announced last year about lessened security of tenancy this is privatisation of social housing by stealth.

 

Other factors need to be taken into consideration.

Many who bought their counci houssl couldn't afford the deposit for a mortgage on a private property after paying rent. Mortgages were not as easy to get in the 1970s when only a mans wage was taken into consideration and only 2.5 times his salary was offered.

By selling council houses it relieved the council of the expense of maintainining and modernising these sold houses.

It relieved them of the burden of subsidising and collecting rents.

Many of the houses had already been paid for in relation to building costs.

But the main very astute difference is that a tenant who bought their home is liable to have to use the value of their home(anything over £23,000) to pay for care costs.

The revenue collected from the sales should have been invested in new council housing.

[JFKvsNixon]

Other factors need to be taken into consideration.

Many who bought their counci houssl couldn't afford the deposit for a mortgage on a private property after paying rent. Mortgages were not as easy to get in the 1970s when only a mans wage was taken into consideration and only 2.5 times his salary was offered.

By selling council houses it relieved the council of the expense of maintainining and modernising these sold houses.

It relieved them of the burden of subsidising and collecting rents.

Many of the houses had already been paid for in relation to building costs.

But the main very astute difference is that a tenant who bought their home is liable to have to use the value of their home(anything over £23,000) to pay for care costs.

The revenue collected from the sales should have been invested in new council housing.

 

How many people end up having to pay "care costs" though?