MrSmith Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Where would they get the capital from? Should they reduce the amount they pay in grants to councils? - That would make some money available ... though being politicians, they'd probably spend it on something else. The government are currently borrowing money, some of that money is given in the form of housing benefits to landlords, the tax payer pays for something but gets sod all in return, so diverting that borrowed money to house building would be a better use of it. The housing benefits some people get is enough to buy an house, so you get builders to build houses and the government buys them with the money they are dishing out in housing benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I don't agree with RTB in principle, however I can understand why individuals took the opportunity when it was presented to them. I'd have probably done the same if I'd been fortunate enough to be allocated a family house on a nice estate. The Scottish government have made some changes to legislation, and I think they are sensible. RTB isn't applicable to new council properties, or to any new tenant. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/02164100/2 I think many housing workers (as I was) expected the RTB to be withdrawn during the term of the last Labour government, but it wasn't. Too much of a vote catcher perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 When 'Right to buy' was originally introduced, I thought that 'time in the house as a renter' would be a major consideration. After all, if you've aid rent for, say, 20 years it doesn't seem (to me) to be too unreasonable to say: "You deserve a chance to buy at a somewhat discounted price." It appears (from what I've read) that a number of fairly short-term rental tenants managed to buy their houses at discounted prices and then sold them on at a significant profit. I doubt that was envisaged when the scheme was introduced. Perhaps the government should take a fresh look at house buying and selling in the UK? In Germany, if you sell a house within 10 years of buying it, you will pay a hefty amount of tax on any profit you make. That stops (or reduced significantly) speculative house buying (like the stuff on the 'Properdee' programmes in the UK which my wife watches and which irritate me so much.) If people can't sell their houses and (perhaps for work reasons) can't live in them, then they rent them out. The '10 year rule' helps ensure a good supply of rental property (other than in major cities.) If you want people to rent out property, then you need government controls to ensure that the rental agreements are fair to both landlords and tenants and are enforced equally against both. We've got those, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 If 'Right to Buy' Council houses was so wrong, why has this policy continued under both Labour and Conservatives? And why won't the Coalition build more houses, are they frightened of devaluing the expensive property? why rent when you can get a bargain in the house market....many are now living rent free...and passing on the property to their children when the time comes...most on our estate bought their council houses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think its very wrong-theres a reason why we built council housing to house people that couldn't afford to buy-they should be retained for future people that can't afford to buy not sold off. I am sure it also means theres no incentive for developers to make affordable housing as they are being undercut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 wrong. social housing should be for people who need it and likewise when people no longer require it, they should move out and into the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I was the first in our family not to have a council house. My parents paid 312,000 pounds (inflation adjusted) in rent to the council to live half their married lives in a slum propery and the other half in a pre-fabricated house. When they died they didn't even own the key! That's the way to keep the peasants in their place, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthly Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Our lass is obsessed with the idea of one day us buying the council house we're living in now, me I'm not sure about it. I don't get the obsession this country has with home ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Social housing is just that, housing for those less fortunate to be able to afford private rent or a mortgage. It should not be sold off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Social housing is just that, housing for those less fortunate to be able to afford private rent or a mortgage. It should not be sold off. Yes, let's keep "the less fortunate" less fortunate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.