apelike Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Because there are strict laws around charities disposing of assets at less than market values. To make them do so would probably require a review of charity law and therein lies the danger - not every charity is set up with purely (ahem) charitable goals. Not so sure about that as HA tenants already have the Right To Acquire which gives them discounts. All this new legislation will do is enable them to buy at greater discounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I disagree entirely with Cameron on this one. How can it be right to take the private property of someone away against their will? If they are exclusively charities, then that is a different matter, but forcing a person/private company owned by people to sell against their will is borderline theft. I'm all for people owning things, but it isn't their house have. They are renting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Not so sure about that as HA tenants already have the Right To Acquire which gives them discounts. All this new legislation will do is enable them to buy at greater discounts. Very true but be aware that the right to acquire only applies to properties bought or built by the HA since 1997. I think the issue here is the scale of the discounts for the new scheme plus making virtually every HA home in theory eligible. ---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 19:45 ---------- I disagree entirely with Cameron on this one. How can it be right to take the private property of someone away against their will? If they are exclusively charities, then that is a different matter, but forcing a person/private company owned by people to sell against their will is borderline theft. I'm all for people owning things, but it isn't their house have. They are renting them. Well said. What next? The right to buy from a private landlord at a hefty taxpayer-subsidised discount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 What next? The right to buy from a private landlord at a hefty taxpayer-subsidised discount? Why not, after all whats sauce for the goose etc.... Why stop there? Camaloon will not be happy until ALL social housing or rented housing is gone and if you cant afford to buy? Well there are plenty of bridges to live under Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Why not, after all whats sauce for the goose etc.... Why stop there? Camaloon will not be happy until ALL social housing or rented housing is gone and if you cant afford to buy? Well there are plenty of bridges to live under Er no - this is not what he is doing at all. He is enabling the poorer in our society who work to be able to buy their own property. The thing I object to is taking property away from who owns it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) ^^^^^^^^^^ This. How would private landlords react if the Tories were to force them to sell their properties off to their tenants at a huge discount? The government should force private landlords to sell properties at a discount based upon rent paid, on account of the subsidies it provides, and what with it being in the public interest. It should also make sure tenants have secure tenancies. ---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 20:16 ---------- The discounts takes years to build up, HA's will have made every penny back that the house cost to build and they are not allowed to make a profit. Its not as if they invested their own money, it was mostly tax payer money they used to build and most of the rent they get very likley comes from HB. The same is true for the majority of private landlords. We need a RTB for all However, discounts would need to be increased to about 95% for most property to be close to it's true market value, supposing we didn't have so many government property market props. Edited May 27, 2015 by chem1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Er no - this is not what he is doing at all. He is enabling the poorer in our society who work to be able to buy their own property. Surely you mean the opportunity to take social housing and give it to the bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 The government should force private landlords to sell properties at a discount based upon rent paid, on account of the subsidies it provides, and what with it being in the public interest. It should force landlords to build one new house, for every house sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 It should force landlords to build one new house, for every house sold. What a stupid backward ridiculous idea. Please post something sensible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barpen Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Housing associations are largely charitable organisations. Under charity law charities are not allowed to dispose of assets at less than market value. Not true. Not even close to being true. Trustees of charities are required to act in the best interests of the charity of which they are a trustee. So if a charity exists to provide affordable homes there is little to stop them selling homes at whatever price they choose. I've never heard of Oxfam charging market rate for vacines and food parcels. 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