Agent Orange Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 So, you're saying that even with the massive difference between the value of an average council house and 238.000, and the huge discount available for council-house tenants, an interest-only mortgage is still too much? ---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 16:21 ---------- What? Even with the huge discount councils are offering and an interest-only mortgage? Why would you choose an interest only mortgage if you want to build equity in a property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYTOT Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Your house is not the same as the house they rent though is it and your mortgage dos not cover all maintenance of the property either. Social housing rents are between £65-£95 per week on average, while the average UK house price is £238,976. If you can find a mortgage for £412 per month, i would be more than surprised. That's a pretty short sighted view. When I bought my 1st house it cost £16750. By the time I had paid for it it was worth £250,000. During that time the repayments didn't increase year on year. By that token a house bought today for 238,976 will probably be worth around £2-3 million in 25 years or so and social housing rents be £1000/week, and the tennant still won't own a single breeze block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Gobby 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 not, if it gets people on to the property ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Why not, if it gets people on to the property ladder. If people decide to get on the property ladder fine. But why should the tax payer have to subsidise them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Nowt wrong with right to buy council houses............ a lot of people have made a a lot of money flogging them on after buying them for peanuts........... nice little earner. ---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 22:11 ---------- Currently, RTB is wrong, very very wrong. . No its not ........... its an easy way of owning property to rent out to top up your pension. You can earn far more renting out property than you could if you left your cash in the bank. Property is the best pension pot you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 That's a pretty short sighted view. When I bought my 1st house it cost £16750. By the time I had paid for it it was worth £250,000. During that time the repayments didn't increase year on year. By that token a house bought today for 238,976 will probably be worth around £2-3 million in 25 years or so and social housing rents be £1000/week, and the tennant still won't own a single breeze block. how is comparing the rent paid today with the price paid for a house 25 years ago of any relevance what so ever? Unless you can predict the housing market over the next 25 years, your point is valueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 But why should the tax payer have to subsidise them? They don't, or rather they haven't for many decades. The rents charged over the years have paid for the buildings many times over and no new homes have been built from that money so no one is subsidising them. Any RTB money goes to the governments central pot and not returned to the local authority. Moneys from the RTB forms part of the main government budget so taxpayers end up (in theory) gaining from that extra government income. The reason why government past and present have liked the RTB. Just to add, creating a demand for homes also keeps the private house prices high, thus creating more profit for the brokers and more debt for the buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 They don't, or rather they haven't for many decades. The rents charged over the years have paid for the buildings many times over and no new homes have been built from that money so no one is subsidising them. Any RTB money goes to the governments central pot and not returned to the local authority. Moneys from the RTB forms part of the main government budget so taxpayers end up (in theory) gaining from that extra government income. The reason why government past and present have liked the RTB. Just to add, creating a demand for homes also keeps the private house prices high, thus creating more profit for the brokers and more debt for the buyers. Do you know the cost paid by councils to build social housing? Do you know how long before a tenant can buy their council house? Do you know the discount they are offered off of the value of the house? Do you know the amount the tenant pays to purchase the house from the council? Do you know the sale price of the house when it enteres the market? If you can answer the above, and provide proof, you are correct, but if you cannot, I'm not convinced by your argument. At the highest rate of rent, a house would have to be rented out by the council for more than 50 years before the rent would exceed the value of the house at sale price. Plus money used to build and maintain social housing does nto go to the population, but rather goes to one family for the duration of the house's life within the councils portfolio. This money is a sizeable investment and then to sell the house at a loss, means a loss to the public purse in real terms. If the council owned a sizeable piece of land in the centre of sheffield and rented it out to a private company for a number of years. If, once they had recouped the cost of the land they sold it to the company at 1/3rd its value (which is approx the highest discount a council tenant can enjoy), the local population would be unhappy with the council for good reason. Social housing is no different, the council tax paying public is taking the risk with the investment while the tenant is taking all the rewards by purchasing the property at a discount and then being able to sell it at an inflated profit a few years later. this is why in my opinion social housing should not be sold off to tenants, and should be kept for people who really needed it, rather than for those who think their government owes them a roof over their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Do you know the cost paid by councils to build social housing? Not exactly as the costs are from around 50 years or so years ago so it is difficult to quantify. But I do have details of some of the costs to build the high rise flats, maisonettes and Vic Hallams in Norfolk Park that were subsequently demolished as I was part of that management board. Do you know how long before a tenant can buy their council house? Yes, although that has changed and been updated. Do you know the discount they are offered off of the value of the house? Yes, But again that has changed and details are available on the Govt. web site under the RTB. Do you know the amount the tenant pays to purchase the house from the council? Which tenant? Do you know the sale price of the house when it enteres the market? That depends on the current value. For instance if I was to buy my flat it would be valued at around £75,000. If you can answer the above, and provide proof, you are correct, but if you cannot, I'm not convinced by your argument. At the highest rate of rent, a house would have to be rented out by the council for more than 50 years before the rent would exceed the value of the house at sale price. Plus money used to build and maintain social housing does nto go to the population, but rather goes to one family for the duration of the house's life within the councils portfolio. This money is a sizeable investment and then to sell the house at a loss, means a loss to the public purse in real terms. If the council owned a sizeable piece of land in the centre of sheffield and rented it out to a private company for a number of years. If, once they had recouped the cost of the land they sold it to the company at 1/3rd its value (which is approx the highest discount a council tenant can enjoy), the local population would be unhappy with the council for good reason. Social housing is no different, the council tax paying public is taking the risk with the investment while the tenant is taking all the rewards by purchasing the property at a discount and then being able to sell it at an inflated profit a few years later. this is why in my opinion social housing should not be sold off to tenants, and should be kept for people who really needed it, rather than for those who think their government owes them a roof over their heads. BTW I agree that social housing should not be sold off, and would say that in fact building them needs to be increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I would suggest that the sale of council housers have a clause in the contract saying that whoever buys the property has to live in it till they sell it again and not be allowed to rent it out. for this reason. http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&oq=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&gs_l=hp.12...1603.21586.0.24976.36.36.0.0.0.0.277.3155.32j3j1.36.0.ernk_timediscountb..0.0...1.1.17.psy-ab.VJTFHhcM4M4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48293060,d.d2k&fp=7ea3df6d65fe6bad&biw=1024&bih=563 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.