harvey19 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) His statement seems quite clear. He didn't say "a house", he said "their house". #post 21 still applies. Perhaps the scheme is aimed at those with skills urgently needed in an area. Perhaps it is aimed at those who are willing to live in houses that had previously been empty for a period of time and the council were unable to let. Perhaps it is aimed at those who will make a contribution to the area by living there. Without details of the scheme being known it is impossible to give an informed answer. Is that a clear answer to the simple question. Edited February 12, 2015 by harvey19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The other thing which I find a bit strange is that currently council houses are owned by the Local Authorities, so how come the government can choose to give away something it doesn't own as a bribe? Surely this will be challenged in court if they try to push it through? And what a colossal waste of taxpayers money that will turn out to be. Still the lawyers will do well out of it, and they need the money so that their mates in HSBC can squirrel it away for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The other thing which I find a bit strange is that currently council houses are owned by the Local Authorities, so how come the government can choose to give away something it doesn't own as a bribe? Surely this will be challenged in court if they try to push it through? And what a colossal waste of taxpayers money that will turn out to be. Still the lawyers will do well out of it, and they need the money so that their mates in HSBC can squirrel it away for them. I don't think local authorities or government want the responsibilities of owning large housing stocks nowadays. This was illustrated by the scheme where council tenants could buy their existing homes. Owning vast housing stocks entail admin, repair, modernisation costs etc. In the past when most people lived in council houses they paid their full rent out of their wages. Times have changed. By downloading their stock of houses they lose their responsibilities and also are able to reduce their own workforce needed to maintain council housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 #post 21 still applies. Perhaps the scheme is aimed at those with skills urgently needed in an area. Perhaps it is aimed at those who are willing to live in houses that had previously been empty for a period of time and the council were unable to let. Perhaps it is aimed at those who will make a contribution to the area by living there. Without details of the scheme being known it is impossible to give an informed answer. Is that a clear answer to the simple question. Front page of today's Times. IDS is pushing for a pledge to ' gift tenants their council home after a year in work'. ' Such tenants would cease to be eligible for housing benefits and would have to pay 35% of the sale price of the house if they sold the property within three years'. That percentage reduces over years. ' All money raised would be ploughed back into the housing market. Proponents argue that the saving in housing benefit and the sales tax receipts, boosted by house inflation would almost outweigh the cost'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 "All money raised would be ploughed back into the housing market." :hihi:Yeah, I bet it would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Front page of today's Times. IDS is pushing for a pledge to ' gift tenants their council home after a year in work'. ' Such tenants would cease to be eligible for housing benefits and would have to pay 35% of the sale price of the house if they sold the property within three years'. That percentage reduces over years. ' All money raised would be ploughed back into the housing market. Proponents argue that the saving in housing benefit and the sales tax receipts, boosted by house inflation would almost outweigh the cost'. In reality it appears that tenants would be able to purchase their council houses after a qualifying period of 1 year instead of the present 3(I think this is correct) and must be in employment. Therefore it just means the term a tenant has lived in their house before having the right to buy it has been reduced and a mortgage can be obtained after 1 year in employment. Do you agree with this interpretation of the article ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I don't think local authorities or government want the responsibilities of owning large housing stocks nowadays. This was illustrated by the scheme where council tenants could buy their existing homes. Owning vast housing stocks entail admin, repair, modernisation costs etc. In the past when most people lived in council houses they paid their full rent out of their wages. Times have changed. By downloading their stock of houses they lose their responsibilities and also are able to reduce their own workforce needed to maintain council housing. Margret Thatchers government brought in the 'right to buy' scheme as they had this idea that property owners were more likely to vote conservative. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2351471%2FGeneration-Rent-cost-Conservatives-votes-warns-think-tank-home-ownership-falls-lowest-levels-Thatcher.html&ei=ueHcVO30FIOQ7Aami4GgAw&usg=AFQjCNE3L51YAtMmDfG_HnO2kKoxZa8BRQ&bvm=bv.85761416,d.ZGU The problem with what you say above is that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs if this goes through. Those who are unable to get another job will wind up on benefits. There will also be a resultant drop in spending power which will impact on local businesses, some will go out of business, putting more people on benefits. The law of unintended consequences can be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 In reality it appears that tenants would be able to purchase their council houses after a qualifying period of 1 year instead of the present 3(I think this is correct) and must be in employment. Therefore it just means the term a tenant has lived in their house before having the right to buy it has been reduced and a mortgage can be obtained after 1 year in employment. Do you agree with this interpretation of the article ? So it's just another way of creating more wealth from the poor, for the banks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 #post 21 still applies. Perhaps the scheme is aimed at those with skills urgently needed in an area. Perhaps it is aimed at those who are willing to live in houses that had previously been empty for a period of time and the council were unable to let. Perhaps it is aimed at those who will make a contribution to the area by living there. Without details of the scheme being known it is impossible to give an informed answer. Is that a clear answer to the simple question. There's lots of ways it might be qualified, but what he's said at the moment is THEIR HOUSE Not another house, not somewhere that their skills (of which they have none, that's why they are long term unemployed) are needed. Not an empty house. Not those who own a unicorn and can summon fairies by moonlight. What he's said is quite clear, unemployed for >24 months, their house. Hoping that he says some more so that you don't have to criticise it, is, well, just wishful thinking at the moment. ---------- Post added 12-02-2015 at 17:32 ---------- The other thing which I find a bit strange is that currently council houses are owned by the Local Authorities, so how come the government can choose to give away something it doesn't own as a bribe? Surely this will be challenged in court if they try to push it through? And what a colossal waste of taxpayers money that will turn out to be. The government introduced right to buy, the councils couldn't stop that, I don't see how they could stop this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy123 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 In Liverpool and I bet in every other city there are empty properties that are very difficult to sell. They tend to be older terraced type houses. Liverpool council sold them off for £1 each on the proviso that they only went to individuals, not to rental companies and that the new owner did them up. A low interest loan was made available for renovations. This is the type of scheme IDS has outlined. Great idea, typical of one nation Toryism of the old school. All of you screaming about benefit cuts should look at this tpe of method where as long s you work you get a leg up. Brilliant. I take it you are a worshipper of this clown are you seriously thinking this proposal has anything to do with helping the the working man/woman do you. I have never felt more contempt for a politician as IDS in my life his treatment of the sick and vulnerable is unforgiveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now