Cyclone Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 How can a failure to be able to afford to buy your own house be described as a trap? It's just life, if you can't afford something then you can't afford it. Am I trapped into being unable to buy a private island, or is that just what circumstances and life dictate? Should I expect tax payers to provide me a discounted private island and then let me buy it from the state at a discount? If not a private island, why a house? You've paid 50k in 14 years. If that same house were rented out at market rates it would probably be 75k, so the council have subsidised you to the tune of 25k, and you expect to be able to buy the house if you fancy it at a discount of 35k (complete guess, I've no idea how the discount works). Pension has nothing to do with it. The moment you don't need 3 bedrooms, which might be at the age of 45, a long time before pensions are an issue, you should be required to move to appropriate subsidised house so that someone who does need 3 bedrooms can have that one. It's not your home, it's a state subsidised rented house. Perhaps you should have been renting privately for the last 14 years, or maybe you should have bought a house. £300/month in rent would have secured you a 50k mortgage a decade ago and bought you a 3 bed house in Walkley (I should know, that's what my mortgage cost when we bought). You think you owe nothing whilst having been living in a state provided, subsidised house which you expect to be able to buy at a discount and probably make back (if you sold immediately) the majority of that 50k. Which part of this equation is the efficient use of tax money? Social housing is not a right. It's something that should be provided as required to those who need it, for as long as they need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Home owners aren't a specific group, they don't all have one set of policies they'd like to see enacted, any attempt to group them together like that as if they all propose or object to ideas is foolish. Tax payers however, would presumably all like to see their tax used as efficiently as possible, and that would include only giving appropriate state aid to people, for example only subsidising housing as appropriate, not giving 3 bedrooms to someone who only needs one and thus wasting tax money. See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 How can a failure to be able to afford to buy your own house be described as a trap? It's just life, if you can't afford something then you can't afford it. Am I trapped into being unable to buy a private island, or is that just what circumstances and life dictate? Should I expect tax payers to provide me a discounted private island and then let me buy it from the state at a discount? If not a private island, why a house? You've paid 50k in 14 years. If that same house were rented out at market rates it would probably be 75k, so the council have subsidised you to the tune of 25k, and you expect to be able to buy the house if you fancy it at a discount of 35k (complete guess, I've no idea how the discount works). Pension has nothing to do with it. The moment you don't need 3 bedrooms, which might be at the age of 45, a long time before pensions are an issue, you should be required to move to appropriate subsidised house so that someone who does need 3 bedrooms can have that one. It's not your home, it's a state subsidised rented house. Perhaps you should have been renting privately for the last 14 years, or maybe you should have bought a house. £300/month in rent would have secured you a 50k mortgage a decade ago and bought you a 3 bed house in Walkley (I should know, that's what my mortgage cost when we bought). You think you owe nothing whilst having been living in a state provided, subsidised house which you expect to be able to buy at a discount and probably make back (if you sold immediately) the majority of that 50k. Which part of this equation is the efficient use of tax money? Social housing is not a right. It's something that should be provided as required to those who need it, for as long as they need it. I would say that this is twisted logic but there is not much logic involved. Firstly, what you are saying is that you want the Right to Buy revoked so that people living in council property aren't allowed to buy it? This then effectively forces them to pay rent (which is rising well above inflation at around 7%) for as long as they are in that property, in all likelihood for life (because saving 20/30k and paying rent and eating is not likely for most working people). This is the trap. You want to keep people down where they belong I presume? As for your subsiding, I have paid the council about 50k already. This is for a house that will have been earning the council money for about 70 year previous to my 50K. On top of that I'm going to give them another 35K. I wonder how many times that houses has been bought over the last 84 years? So anyway, yes I think I'm entitled to a bit of a discount, the council and your tax payers will still have profited. Pension has nothing to do with it. The moment you don't need 3 bedrooms, which might be at the age of 45, a long time before pensions are an issue, you should be required to move to appropriate subsidised house so that someone who does need 3 bedrooms can have that one. It's not your home, it's a state subsidised rented house. I can tell you've never lived in a council property. You might have been living their for 20/25 years (paying full rent) and as soon as a one of your children leaves the new eviction department comes around and throws you out of your 'state subsidised rented house' otherwise known, to some people, as your home. That sounds like state Russia in the good old days. Perhaps you should have been renting privately for the last 14 years, or maybe you should have bought a house. £300/month in rent would have secured you a 50k mortgage a decade ago and bought you a 3 bed house in Walkley (I should know, that's what my mortgage cost when we bought). If I had been renting privately for the last 14 years I wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything, and yes in hindsight getting a mortgage earlier would have been a wise move, but at least I can do so now thanks to the RTB. You think you owe nothing whilst having been living in a state provided, subsidised house which you expect to be able to buy at a discount and probably make back (if you sold immediately) the majority of that 50k. Which part of this equation is the efficient use of tax money? I know that the money made from the house seen the council built it 80 odd years ago has paid for itself about 10 times over, this is including the 85K I will have personally paid for the £62k property. And NO, I cannot sell this immediately, in fact I would have to wait 5 years to sell this on without penalty. And why shouldn't I be able to sell it on to make a scrap of money, does the thought of the 'lower orders' making any money scare you? Social housing is not a right. It's something that should be provided as required to those who need it, for as long as they need it. As long as you need it is life because if you start paying rent with no opportunity of saving a deposit you're trapped. 100% mortgages do not exist any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 How are they not one family? Grandmother - Daughter - Granddaughter - Daughter - Granddaughter Looks like 1 family to me. When people reach the age of 18 they are no longer classed as family members as they are no longer children. They are classed as being an individual adult for which a parent has no legal responsibility over. So, its not classed as one family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Social housing is not a right. Yes it is as anybody, given a few exceptions, has the right to apply for one. It's something that should be provided as required to those who need it, for as long as they need it. No it shouldn't and I'm glad to say that it isn't done that way. More should be built and the rents should be capped as its a self defeating strategy in upping the rents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 When people reach the age of 18 they are no longer classed as family members as they are no longer children. They are classed as being an individual adult for which a parent has no legal responsibility over. So, its not classed as one family. Unless your 18 year old goes to university - and then they are not classed as an independent adult but dependent upon parents and their loans are calculated against the family income . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Unless your 18 year old goes to university - and then they are not classed as an independent adult but dependent upon parents and their loans are calculated against the family income . Thanks for that, some info that is actually useful. Edit. Just realised that they are classed as an adult in law but when living at home other rules apply as they are not independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz-cooper Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I was in my council house for 30 years and I loved it and it was mi home.My husband and I tried to buy it but we did not earn enough.I 2010 I was too disabled to carry on managing in the 3 bed house and my lads had grown up and moved out 2009.I was appalled having to flit but I got an exchange with a young f amily and I really love my little flat.So it turned out well for me and I was aware that I was keeping a big family house on.I was trying for 2 years to get a disabled flat (rotherham) but never even got an offer...so the council weren't in any hurry to re house a family.Luckilly they like my old house as well so it's worked out smashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Thanks for that, some info that is actually useful. Edit. Just realised that they are classed as an adult in law but when living at home other rules apply as they are not independent. Glad it helped...........the tuition loan is not means tested against parental income - but the "maintenance" (the one they pay their housing , living costs etc out of ) is . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 When people reach the age of 18 they are no longer classed as family members as they are no longer children. They are classed as being an individual adult for which a parent has no legal responsibility over. So, its not classed as one family. You don't consider your parents to be part of your family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.