A word of warning on buying council houses

[Grandad.Malky]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Because it wasn’t yours to sell in the first place ……. Remember back to the day when you first got the house …… did you sign a agreement to "rent" it …….. no mention of buying then was there .... well not until the Conservatives started buying voters.

 

I don’t call £75,000 or £300, 000 a scrap of money do you.

[Cyclone]

Yes it is as anybody, given a few exceptions, has the right to apply for one.

There's a massive difference between the right to apply and the right to have.

Having social housing is not a right.

[Cyclone]

I would say that this is twisted logic but there is not much logic involved.

I think you mean that you don't like the conclusions I draw, any logical flaws should be easily pointed out though.

 

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?

Yes, that way the social housing stays available for future tenants.

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?

No, they're completely free to go and buy a house privately like everyone else.

 

As for your subsiding,

Is someone sinking into the ground, are you talking about someone subsidising?

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.

I disagree, if you buy that house at a discount then a) it's not available in the future for someone who needs a council house and b) the state has lost the ongoing income or the full sale value of that property, whilst you get something cheap.

 

 

 

I can tell you've never lived in a council property.

True. I've paid my own way.

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.

It sounds like providing appropriate social housing to those who need it. It should never be seen as a home for life anymore than a privately rented home would be.

 

 

 

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.

At a cost to everyone else.

 

 

 

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?

Why does this entitle you to buy it cheap or make a profit. That house should stay available for someone else that actually needs social housing.

 

 

 

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.

If you're incapable of saving even a small amount towards a deposit then you either need to improve your pay or decrease your expenditure.

[Benedictine]

If you're incapable of saving even a small amount towards a deposit then you either need to improve your pay or decrease your expenditure.

True. I've paid my own way.

 

What you mean is you got lucky, or made a wise move, on an attractive mortgage deal of which the like is not around any more. £300 per month for a house in Walkley. Try getting that deal today. You would be paying double that I expect, especially if you haven't got a large deposit at least 20%. Have a look below if you don't believe me.

 

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/mortgages/interestrates-types/rates.htm

 

So we are not really talking about what you got but the current situation. You would see someone in council property being forced to pay the market value and unable to buy that property as well. That would mean a 2 bed house on Parson Cross, say, would cost around £475 per month, whereas your mortgage that you was allowed to secure (but they aren't) is locked somewhere much lower, that doesn't seem fair or logical. How is a low income earner (or no income) supposed to pay market rate on a council estate property? How is that form of 'social housing' helping anybody?

 

No, they're completely free to go and buy a house privately like everyone else.

 

Wrong. I think you'll find it depends upon having a substancial wedge of money to move up the property ladder. This is especially so if they have to pay market value on a council property?

At a cost to everyone else.

 

How is it a cost to everyone else. I have already shown how many council properties have been paid over and over by the tenants, sometimes 10 times over.

 

Why does this entitle you to buy it cheap or make a profit. That house should stay available for someone else that actually needs social housing.

 

They just need to be able to pay £475 for one of the worst properties/areas in Sheffield.

[Benedictine]

Because it wasn’t yours to sell in the first place ……. Remember back to the day when you first got the house …… did you sign a agreement to "rent" it …….. no mention of buying then was there .... well not until the Conservatives started buying voters.

 

I don’t call £75,000 or £300, 000 a scrap of money do you.

 

Well they are not buying this voter. I am no fan of the Conservatives but the Right to Buy does help to get working people ahead a little so I am all for it. After all, the Conservatives and their like have done enough damage for middle or lower income earners (or anybody not in the top 5%?) so we'll have this one thing back.

 

I'm sure that a lot of reaction against the Right to Buy and the discounts is just plain jealously from the 'I'm alright Jack brigade' and has nothing do with with worrying about the supposed lack of 'social housing' at all. I'm not saying this is you but you don't have to look too far to see what I mean. Also be careful of sensational Sun headlines. In fact just never ever read the Sun.

[Cyclone]

What you mean is you got lucky, or made a wise move, on an attractive mortgage deal of which the like is not around any more. £300 per month for a house in Walkley. Try getting that deal today. You would be paying double that I expect, especially if you haven't got a large deposit at least 20%. Have a look below if you don't believe me.

I suppose you could call it lucky that I worked hard at school, got a good degree and have a successful small business.

Obviously a mortgage like that doesn't exist now, the house is worth more than twice what I paid for it, although I'm struggling to sell it as the market is so slow.

 

So we are not really talking about what you got but the current situation. You would see someone in council property being forced to pay the market value and unable to buy that property as well. That would mean a 2 bed house on Parson Cross, say, would cost around £475 per month, whereas your mortgage that you was allowed

Who is it allowed me to do that?

to secure (but they aren't) is locked somewhere much lower, that doesn't seem fair or logical.

Don't worry about that mortgage, I paid it off years ago.

How is a low income earner (or no income) supposed to pay market rate on a council estate property? How is that form of 'social housing' helping anybody?

Maybe it will encourage them to change their situation of "low income".

 

No, you got a point, it's not helping at all if it's at the market rate, so it should be subsidised.

So the next time I call it subsidised please don't object, because you've just made a very good argument as to why it shouldn't be at the market rate and the only way that can be achieved is if the council subsidises it.

 

 

 

Wrong. I think you'll find it depends upon having a substancial wedge of money to move up the property ladder. This is especially so if they have to pay market value on a council property?

And like every else they're free to save that deposit. Do you think existing home owners were gifted deposits from storks or something?

 

How is it a cost to everyone else. I have already shown how many council properties have been paid over and over by the tenants, sometimes 10 times over.

Make up your mind. If something is being let at below market value then clearly the tax payer is subsidising it.

 

 

 

They just need to be able to pay £475 for one of the worst properties/areas in Sheffield.

Who does? The list of waiting tenants?

[denlin]

I'd describe middle class as a combined annual income circa 100k. Not many of those living on the local sink estates in Sheffield!

 

Even if I had an income of £100k I would still be working class if I had to go out and earn it. Actually if I won 5 million I would still class myself as working class because I am a socialist through and through, not these wishy washy excuses we have now and I include all major parties in this:roll:

[Cyclone]

Earning money is not the definition of working class, the middle classes have always had to earn money.

[Benedictine]

I suppose you could call it lucky that I worked hard at school, got a good degree and have a successful small business.

Obviously a mortgage like that doesn't exist now, the house is worth more than twice what I paid for it, although I'm struggling to sell it as the market is so slow.

 

I also worked hard at school and later got a good degree (while working full-time and raising a family) but missed out on one of those golden mortgage deals you got and therefore the subsequent house boom. (Not all people who live in 'social housing' are uneducated, layabout bums who do nothing but drink Carling and listen to hip-hop.) The mortgage deal was a missed opportunity that many people are kicking themselves for it I expect, but at least now with the RTB we have a second shot at buying this property and maybe later moving on.

 

Your house is worth double what you paid for it, that's good for you, but also a lot of luck, as nobody could have really predicted the boom in house prices. My house will be worth half of what I pay for it (when it is eventually paid off in 20 years time) but still I'm grateful for that second shot, though you would still deny me even that.

 

Maybe it will encourage them to change their situation of "low income".

 

No, you got a point, it's not helping at all if it's at the market rate, so it should be subsidised.So the next time I call it subsidised please don't object, because you've just made a very good argument as to why it shouldn't be at the market rate and the only way that can be achieved is if the council subsidises it.

 

Have you seen the news at all in the last three years? Do you think well paid jobs (or any jobs) are dropping off trees? Yes there are an element of people who don't want to work and are happy to lay around and leach but this is not everybody - your 'them' applies to a large collection of different people, with different circumstances and blanket criticisms are at best faulty, and at worst offensive.

 

OK at least the nonsense of market value has been dropped but the only real drain on the tax payer is when rents are fully subsidised, i.e. through unemployment, for with those who pay full rent the council are still making a good profit (above the market value Vs mortgage payments). Again, though it is still too easy and too Daily Mail to blanket all unemployed as layabouts - besides we live in a pyramid structured society where they will be ALWAYS be the larger segment of people towards the bottom end that can't be changed unless we move away from a market/capitalist based system.

[Cyclone]

I also worked hard at school and later got a good degree (while working full-time and raising a family) but missed out on one of those golden mortgage deals you got and therefore the subsequent house boom.

Don't kid yourself that the housing boom helped anyone. I've just moved, the new house cost 2.5 * what the old one cost.

Think for yourself whether I'd prefer that to be 2.5* the original cost or 2.5* the value today.

 

(Not all people who live in 'social housing' are uneducated, layabout bums who do nothing but drink Carling and listen to hip-hop.) The mortgage deal was a missed opportunity that many people are kicking themselves for it I expect, but at least now with the RTB we have a second shot at buying this property and maybe later moving on.

Maybe, but by taking advantage of that opportunity (which has existed for longer than the 'golden' mortgages you've missed out on, you will deprive the state and some future person who needs social housing of that house.

 

Your house is worth double what you paid for it, that's good for you

No it isn't. It's only good for people who own more than one house or can downsize. It's simply not good for the vast majority of homeowners.

but also a lot of luck, as nobody could have really predicted the boom in house prices. My house will be worth half of what I pay for it (when it is eventually paid off in 20 years time) but still I'm grateful for that second shot, though you would still deny me even that.

I'd deny you that in order to ensure that the house was available for someone else in need of it. You will deny someone else the use of the social housing that you've taken advantage of.

 

Have you seen the news at all in the last three years? Do you think well paid jobs (or any job) are dropping off trees? Yes there are an element of people who don't want to work and are happy to lay around and leach but this is not everybody - your 'them' applies to a large collection of different people, with different circumstances and blanket criticisms are at best faulty and at worst offensive.

I don't think I criticised. You were suggesting that people in council housing can't home to buy a house privately and I disagree, you're the one being negative about them.

 

OK at least the nonsense of market value has been dropped but the only real drain on the tax payer is when rents are fully subsidised, i.e. through unemployment, for with those who pay full rent the council are still making a good profit (above the market value Vs mortgage payments). Again, though it is still too easy and too Daily Mail to blanket all unemployed as layabouts - besides we live in a pyramid structured society where they will be ALWAYS be the larger segment of people towards the bottom end that can't be changed unless we move away from a market/capitalist system.

 

At least we agree now that social housing is subsidised, and it's for this reason that I don't think there should be the additional subsidy and loss to the state of selling it to tenants. It's removing it from the use of future tenants, who you've just pointed out will continue to exist due to the nature of our society.