Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: HolyCount on 20 November 2010, 10:12:49
-
I see the condem lot are now going to throw council house tennants onto the streets after two years if their income rises sufficiently since becoming social housing tenants.
Don't think they have thought this through.
This means that families could be forced into the situation of having to move every 6 months as assured 6 month tenancies come to term. Demand for private rented properties ( already getting higher) will increase beyond measure, as will rents demanded for them. This will, again, make the rents unaffordable for said families, who will find themselves back on an ever increasing council house waiting list !!!!
Would it not be fairer to allow families to remain in the council house, but increase rents as their incomes improve. The increased revenues could be set towards the provision of more houses for social housing.
Am I totally missing the point or being too simplistic ???
-
Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.
Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.
So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.
-
Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.
Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.
So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.
It wouldn't surprise me, Skruntie, if the Right to Buy was the next thing to go.
-
What incentive would there be to move from no income to a good income by working hard?
I was told a situation yesterday about a young couple out here that had a baby. They moved back to London to "get a flat" on the DHS. Now they have fallen out and both need flats on the DHS. Oh and there is a court case (taxpayers money) for a trumped up assault charge - battered single mum straight to the top of the housing list. How the other half live.
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
-
Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.
Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.
So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.
It wouldn't surprise me, Skruntie, if the Right to Buy was the next thing to go.
Removing right to buy has already been indicated...
The other thing to remember is that there have been a lot of suggestions that have been stopped further along the line as not being appropriate...
I personally feel and have done for a very long time, that the "Buy for Let" area of the property market must be pushed into higher value properties and not the entry level property prices. Doing this would help to control the cost of property to make house ownership a more viable option...
-
I see the condem lot are now going to throw council house tennants onto the streets after two years if their income rises sufficiently since becoming social housing tenants.
Don't think they have thought this through.
This means that families could be forced into the situation of having to move every 6 months as assured 6 month tenancies come to term. Demand for private rented properties ( already getting higher) will increase beyond measure, as will rents demanded for them. This will, again, make the rents unaffordable for said families, who will find themselves back on an ever increasing council house waiting list !!!!
Would it not be fairer to allow families to remain in the council house, but increase rents as their incomes improve. The increased revenues could be set towards the provision of more houses for social housing.
Am I totally missing the point or being too simplistic ???
This could be a possible compromise HC.... But there are no definitive answers in my view...For example..If one Council tenant on a high income....pays..(let's say) £800...each month...and another on a lower income pays £400 each month for identical accommodation....then presumably the tenant paying the most will be tempted to secure a mortgage....thus freeing up his council house for the very people who need one most..(young couples ..possibly with children who are on a low wage)
However.....even with a large deposit ....and a generous income it is not easy to secure a mortgage these days as the banks won't lend. :-/ :-/ :-/ :y
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
It's not only their fault TB......You should have used a condom.... ::) ::) ;) :y
-
Just worked it out. It's the fact they want to free houses up for the boat people and the imigrants that just decend on us and demand benifits and housing. :-/
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
+1
-
What incentive would there be to move from no income to a good income by working hard?
I was told a situation yesterday about a young couple out here that had a baby. They moved back to London to "get a flat" on the DHS. Now they have fallen out and both need flats on the DHS. Oh and there is a court case (taxpayers money) for a trumped up assault charge - battered single mum straight to the top of the housing list. How the other half live.
How the other half live
Quite so V and many of them are more than adept at manipulating the system for their own purposes.
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
It's not only their fault TB......You should have used a condom.... ::) ::) ;) :y
Good God man, I wouldn't touch them with yours ;D
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
The people you and others speak off - on benefits, wont work, get up the duff as a lifestyle/ career choice - wont be affected at all by this muddled thinking policy. It is aimed at people who work and pay their own way in the world. It looks like they will be caught in a trap, whereby it wont pay to work too hard, or make too much effort to pay their rent etc. because it could mean the house they have called home for 5, 10, or even 20 years or more could be taken from them and given to someone who has never paid a months rent or council tax since the day they were born. Or possibly couldnt have picked the U.K. out on a map of the world a short time ago.
More muddled thinking and Govt. by gimmick from the new tories.
The question Im asking is why ? - if this is the proposed solution, what is the problem they think it will solve ?
I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but why would anyone live in social housing if they can afford to buy their own home ?? :-/
P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. ;) ;)
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
The people you and others speak off - on benefits, wont work, get up the duff as a lifestyle/ career choice - wont be affected at all by this muddled thinking policy. It is aimed at people who work and pay their own way in the world. It looks like they will be caught in a trap, whereby it wont pay to work too hard, or make too much effort to pay their rent etc. because it could mean the house they have called home for 5, 10, or even 20 years or more could be taken from them and given to someone who has never paid a months rent or council tax since the day they were born. Or possibly couldnt have picked the U.K. out on a map of the world a short time ago.
More muddled thinking and Govt. by gimmick from the new tories.
The question Im asking is why ? - if this is the proposed solution, what is the problem they think it will solve ?
I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but why would anyone live in social housing if they can afford to buy their own home ?? :-/
Spot on
P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. ;) ;)
[/highlight]
Bit like the banks then!
-
< P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. >
We became private tenants about 6 years ago, due to a number of unfortunate incidents, and have to say that it isn't only the council tenants who get a rough deal on repairs etc. At the last house we rented, the boiler packed up on July 12th. After many lies and excuses from both the agent and the landlord, it was eventually fixed on the 24th. October, we left 3 weeks later in November.
2 days after moving to our current home the boiler packed up, a week later it was fixed. This house has so very many faults, but you just try to get the landlord to put his hand in his pocket.... Not to mention that he and his wife still claim to live here, I have to hold on to all their mail, and during the winter months post it off monthly to a P.O. Box in Portugal ??? What really irks me is, I pay £80 a month more for this 3 bedroom hovel than my mortgage was on our last house even with 4 fewer rooms.... >:(
-
< P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. >
We became private tenants about 6 years ago, due to a number of unfortunate incidents, and have to say that it isn't only the council tenants who get a rough deal on repairs etc. At the last house we rented, the boiler packed up on July 12th. After many lies and excuses from both the agent and the landlord, it was eventually fixed on the 24th. October, we left 3 weeks later in November.
2 days after moving to our current home the boiler packed up, a week later it was fixed. This house has so very many faults, but you just try to get the landlord to put his hand in his pocket.... Not to mention that he and his wife still claim to live here, I have to hold on to all their mail, and during the winter months post it off monthly to a P.O. Box in Portugal ??? What really irks me is, I pay £80 a month more for this 3 bedroom hovel than my mortgage was on our last house even with 4 fewer rooms.... >:(
This is another annoying twist of the knife mortgage - wise. You get turned down for a mortgage due to a shortfall in your income multiples -- yet can demonstrate that you have been paying more in rent for the last xx years!!
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
You know that I hate upsetting you Jaime......but... ;D
My wife earns £70,000 and we live in a housing association house and we can never be evicted and then it will pass, in perpetuity, to our son. :P :P :P :P
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
The people you and others speak off - on benefits, wont work, get up the duff as a lifestyle/ career choice - wont be affected at all by this muddled thinking policy. It is aimed at people who work and pay their own way in the world. It looks like they will be caught in a trap, whereby it wont pay to work too hard, or make too much effort to pay their rent etc. because it could mean the house they have called home for 5, 10, or even 20 years or more could be taken from them and given to someone who has never paid a months rent or council tax since the day they were born. Or possibly couldnt have picked the U.K. out on a map of the world a short time ago.
More muddled thinking and Govt. by gimmick from the new tories.
The question Im asking is why ? - if this is the proposed solution, what is the problem they think it will solve ?
I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but why would anyone live in social housing if they can afford to buy their own home ?? :-/
Spot on
P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. ;) ;)
[/highlight]
Bit like the banks then!
A bit of a cheap shot, which is imo well beneath your usual standard of reasoned argument Varche. ;)
The banks are (in theory at least ) accountable to their shareholders, the marvellous FSA ::) and others. They also in most cases (even now) are making decisions on what to do with their own profits. Housing associations are charities and therefore exempt from most of the financial regulation which businesses have to adhere to. They have come about to allow councils to dispose of their housing stock,and have become yet another gravy train, which is neither in the private or public sectors, but in a grey area somewhere in between.
So, no not like the banks at all really. ;)
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Plus......if you are a civil servant in today's world, do you want to wrap a 25 year debt around your neck. Lose your job, lose your house...no thanks.
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Well.. I put <10% down on my first flat, and only 12% on my house (the profit from my flat), the monthly interest rate is over 6% and I could privately rent the house next door for less than my mortgage by £200.
All in all, the figure you quote for a council house seems like an amazingly good deal to me.. less than half I could get a mortgage for, as I say. Much more disposable income etc etc.
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Well.. I put <10% down on my first flat, and only 12% on my house (the profit from my flat), the monthly interest rate is over 6% and I could privately rent the house next door for less than my mortgage by £200.
All in all, the figure you quote for a council house seems like an amazingly good deal to me.. less than half I could get a mortgage for, as I say. Much more disposable income etc etc.
But when you retire you will own an asset worth a six figure sum. People who rent wont own a blade of grass in their own garden. If they could afford the extra money to be able to swap places with you, Im sure 99.9% of them would be happy to do so. :y
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.
You know that, and I know that Albs, but believe me I have known many individuals and families in my life who have / still do live in council housing for life, but who earn more than enough money to buy their own.
Remember it is only in this country that buying property is so polular; in Europe generally renting property is the done thing ;) ;)
-
The one factor that we have all forgotten to mention in this discussion,which skews any figures mentioned by a huge amount, is the fact that houses in this country are absolutely ludicrously overpriced. I accept Aarons argument that the differential between social housing rent and mortage repayments is higher than I thought it would be, but that is only due to the price of property. Although it is almost impossible to achieve, I would really like to see a catastrophic crash in property prices, but the rest of the economy growing nicely at the same time.The economy has shrunk quite a lot in the last 3 years, but house prices dont seem to have dropped by anything like the same amount. This is obviously a simple supply and demand issue, due to the increased number of people living in the country, so there probably isnt much that could be done about it.
Who gains from these high property prices apart from estate agents? :-/
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.
I agree with Albs on this point.......What's the difference between "the millstone" that is 25 years of mortgage payments ....or "the millstone" that is 25 years of paying rent.
Unless you are a dysfunctional adult who lives with his parents well into middle age ....you will be paying for one millstone or another...
-
The one factor that we have all forgotten to mention in this discussion,which skews any figures mentioned by a huge amount, is the fact that houses in this country are absolutely ludicrously overpriced. I accept Aarons argument that the differential between social housing rent and mortage repayments is higher than I thought it would be, but that is only due to the price of property. Although it is almost impossible to achieve, I would really like to see a catastrophic crash in property prices, but the rest of the economy growing nicely at the same time.The economy has shrunk quite a lot in the last 3 years, but house prices dont seem to have dropped by anything like the same amount. This is obviously a simple supply and demand issue, due to the increased number of people living in the country, so there probably isnt much that could be done about it.
Who gains from these high property prices apart from estate agents? :-/
You could be right on that on Albs. However historically the wealth of the country has been in land, and it has represented the collateral for commerce and private transactions almost since certainly Roman rule. Land, and therefore property, represents the worth of us all and if the values slip, as you suggest as a good thing, then the commercial worth of all transactions is ruined with disastrous results. Negative equity is just one result, but even worse is the value of all investments based in property, and I warrant that is a majority, plummet with that resulting, in our capitalist system, in the ruination of many businesses and subsequently millions of our citizens as the credit worthiness of us all, and the UK as a whole fails in the eyes of the international markets. We would be bankrupt in the eyes of those markets.
This is what almost happened recently :'(
-
< P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. >
We became private tenants about 6 years ago, due to a number of unfortunate incidents, and have to say that it isn't only the council tenants who get a rough deal on repairs etc. At the last house we rented, the boiler packed up on July 12th. After many lies and excuses from both the agent and the landlord, it was eventually fixed on the 24th. October, we left 3 weeks later in November.
2 days after moving to our current home the boiler packed up, a week later it was fixed. This house has so very many faults, but you just try to get the landlord to put his hand in his pocket.... Not to mention that he and his wife still claim to live here, I have to hold on to all their mail, and during the winter months post it off monthly to a P.O. Box in Portugal ??? What really irks me is, I pay £80 a month more for this 3 bedroom hovel than my mortgage was on our last house even with 4 fewer rooms.... >:(
This is another annoying twist of the knife mortgage - wise. You get turned down for a mortgage due to a shortfall in your income multiples -- yet can demonstrate that you have been paying more in rent for the last xx years!!
The banks have become incredibly risk averse of late, which is understandable tbh. The current mess started because they had been lending money to a lot of people who couldnt afford to pay it back. Everything in the industry now is about taking virtually no risk whatsoever, and they are employing more and more people (who generate no wealth or profit) who check every T has been crossed and every i been dotted for the sake of compliance with all the FSA directives etc. I think it will be that way for a very long time to come, unfortunately.
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.
I agree with Albs on this point.......What's the difference between "the millstone" that is 25 years of mortgage payments ....or "the millstone" that is 25 years of paying rent.
Unless you are a dysfunctional adult who lives with his parents well into middle age ....you will be paying for one millstone or another...
The difference is Opti that if you have a mortgage and lose your job, then you will lose all security and a home. Paying rent means for many the ability to take things day by day, and if the worst happens as many workers fear, then they can stay in their home with benefits paying the rent! In addition there is a large proportion of the population that do not believe in lumping themselves with a mortgage, even if they can, as it gives them no flexibility, especially with the culture of "living together" couples that may stay together for a few months / years, but then split.
It is for practical reasons why many opt to rent, and they believe mortgages are not for them. Who says they are wrong in their particular circumstances? :)
-
Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it
Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.
That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.
The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?
Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living. They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses. They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub. In many ways you cannot blame them!! ;) ;)
Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.
You missed a few bits out albs.
People pften get married/divorced so a guy owing his own property, gets married and has kids and then divorces or marries and takes on a family and then divorces and in both cases only gets half of what he put into then meets someone else, puts all his money down on a deposit and buys a new family home only to end up divorced again.
Then there is the single person, no relatives, no family, why buy a house when it's cheaper to rent.
Where I used to live there were families taking advantage of houseing booms (80's) selling up thier 4 or 5 bed properties and moving into rented accomadation (3 bedroom) for £20 a weekand just banking thier house money and making a profit alot of who invested abroad.
Same old situation, goverment make rules, people will allways simply take advantage of them.
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
-
If you lose your job, benefits will take care of your mortage for a certain amount of time. Then it is possible you could lose your home. If this happens you have only one realistic course of action - social housing. ;)
I grew up on huge housing estates, and the vast majority of the tenants lived in the same house for many years, and took a lot of pride in their homes. I dont believe it would be right in any circumstances to take those houses off these people.
Chavs who wreck the houses and have no respect for anything or anyone are a different matter, but this policy claims to be about getting people out of social housing who could afford to live elswhere, so the chavs wont be affected by it. In fact it could easily turn the estates into ghettos, if you take out the people who work for a living.
If it isnt done in a very careful way, it could cause outrage. For example - the first time someone has their house taken from them for those kind of reasons, and the new tenant is an immigrant, it would be christmas come early for the BNP etc.
They would have a field day with the media, claiming ethnic cleansing against the indiginous people. Particularily against harmless people who pay their way in the world, and dont tend to bang the table for "their entitlements and rights" etc.
It would be very easy for the media to portray it as bullying against people who have done nothing to deserve it.
But Im sure the spin doctors will advise Cameron of that before it gets much further. Expect it to get watered down considerably before it gets anywhere near the statute books. ;)
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
But you are only subsidising the rent if the tenant is recieving housing benefit, and this policy wont affect those people.
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes. Since her enabling many more people to become home owners attitudes seem to have changed to the point that it seems that if you live in rented housing you are a workshy pariah who is to be looked down on.
As Lizzie says, in the rest of Europe it is the norm to rent, but the problem in this country is that house prices, and therefore private rental prices are so ludicrouly high, that it isnt really an option for many people.
How can someone these days who earns a normal wage of say£22,000pa possibly get on the housing ladder,or pay £800 pcm to rent a 3 bed semi in the private sector? :-/
-
The one factor that we have all forgotten to mention in this discussion,which skews any figures mentioned by a huge amount, is the fact that houses in this country are absolutely ludicrously overpriced. I accept Aarons argument that the differential between social housing rent and mortage repayments is higher than I thought it would be, but that is only due to the price of property. Although it is almost impossible to achieve, I would really like to see a catastrophic crash in property prices, but the rest of the economy growing nicely at the same time.The economy has shrunk quite a lot in the last 3 years, but house prices dont seem to have dropped by anything like the same amount. This is obviously a simple supply and demand issue, due to the increased number of people living in the country, so there probably isnt much that could be done about it.
Who gains from these high property prices apart from estate agents? :-/
You could be right on that on Albs. However historically the wealth of the country has been in land, and it has represented the collateral for commerce and private transactions almost since certainly Roman rule. Land, and therefore property, represents the worth of us all and if the values slip, as you suggest as a good thing, then the commercial worth of all transactions is ruined with disastrous results. Negative equity is just one result, but even worse is the value of all investments based in property, and I warrant that is a majority, plummet with that resulting, in our capitalist system, in the ruination of many businesses and subsequently millions of our citizens as the credit worthiness of us all, and the UK as a whole fails in the eyes of the international markets. We would be bankrupt in the eyes of those markets.
This is what almost happened recently :'(
Historically. Well up until fairly recent times the wealth was in the hands of a few. Around Mrs Thatchers time we were encouraged to make a fast buck. Remember privatisations? Remember banks (sorry the b word again) lending like there was no tomorrow.2 times your earnings, then two and a half, then half of your spouse's as well, then even more clever instruments like delayed payments. Of course it didn't matter because house prices kept on rising. If you got into difficulty you just sold and "adjusted " your mortgage to suit. Of course all this market value isn't based on what a country produces but what its assets are worth. No good if no one else actually wants them.
Buy Gold I say!!
The motives ? I would hazard the following. There is insufficient housing stock because of the daft policy of selling off to tenants of housing stock at reduced price. So booting people out that have a bit of money to fend for themselves looks good. It doesn't really address the problem. There isn't the money to build more housing stock because we are wasting it on daft military expenditure. We can't boot out the single mothers who never ever intend to earn a living as that would be plain wrong. The Condems are turning out to be just as rotten as the last lot. Am I surprised, err no I am not.
-
I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.
The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc
It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! :( They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.
-
I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.
The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc
It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! :( They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.
Sorry Entwood, you are incorrect on that point as many huge council estates were built pre-war with no connection whatsoever with a persons employment. Those estates can be found all around greater London, and around many, if not all, of British cities and towns. You are right however about mining and railway housing, let alone of course the big social experiment of the Bourneville workers village in Birmingham. That all was of course in the interests of the employers who 'secured' their workforce and started during the 19th century. ;) ;)
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
As usual, eloquently put! I agree!
I could take you around various 'council' estate around here where the tenants have far more disposable income than me, & I consider myself to be fairly well paid.
-
....
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes. .....
You sure? :-/
I know that massive profits were made by ex-tenants that bought their 'corporation house' with a 60% discount cos they'd lived in it for X yrs. I didn't get a discount on the cost of my house after I'd been a tenant of the MOD for a few years. ::)
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........
-
I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.
The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc
It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! :( They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.
Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type. ::)
-
I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.
The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc
It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! :( They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.
Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type. ::)
I totally agree Albs! :y :y :y
-
....
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes. .....
You sure? :-/
I know that massive profits were made by ex-tenants that bought their 'corporation house' with a 60% discount cos they'd lived in it for X yrs. I didn't get a discount on the cost of my house after I'd been a tenant of the MOD for a few years. ::)
Yep - they didnt have the right to buy their houses until Thatcher gave it to them.
-
....
but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. ......
and I think that is the gist of the argument, there are far too many that have a council house paid for them and do the square root of f ... all (officially :-X) in return.
-
I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.
The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc
It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! :( They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.
Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type. ::)
I have many friends who fit that description perfectly ... they have made a life style choice NOT to buy, for many different and varied reasons... ... but the don't have their lifestyle supported by other taxpayers.... they rent privately ... there is a HUGE difference.
I am NOT anti-renting ... I am NOT anti-social housing ... I AM anti scroungers ..
:)
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........
Thats a fair point tbh Mike. Although in my experience, many tenants move to a council bungalow or similar (if there is one available) when the kids flee the nest and they get to retirement age, I know my parents did. It could be possible to make some kind of rule on these circumstances, but it would depend on suitable accomodation being available in the local area.
-
Entwood and Andy - I repeat my point from earlier in the discussion. This proposal will do nothing to deter scroungers whatsoever. It is about getting people out of social houses who the govt. have decreed earn enough money to make other arrangements. My main argument against that is that many of these people will surely have lived in these houses for many years. If they are earning reasonably decent money, the chances are they will have looked after and possibly improved the property, as they regard it as their home. The kind of people who are normally a landlords dream.
I honestly dont know what the thinking is behind this policy, but it isnt anything to do with scroungers, from what I have read about it. I assure you I detest scroungers at least as much as you do. :y
-
Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...
But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers ... now would it .. :)
-
Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...
But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers ... now would it .. :)
I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist. Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.
These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.
-
There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.
Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.
Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.
Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years ??? If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution
Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??
All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO
And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. :)
and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... :(
I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........
This is flawed. Let me give you a real life example. Mr and Mrs raise their five kids in a three bed council house they took on from being built. Worked hard all their lives. The kids left the nest and one of the parents dies. The other lives on with their memories. Needs some assistance from carers.
To be "booted out" and put in a home would hasten their death and be a burden on the state. Course it is easy to not think about the person just the grander concepts. It might be different for younger folk but what about the community?
-
What a fantastic idea by the Government. I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.
Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy. And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.
todays local sunday newspaper headline.
even worse that above scenario.
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2010/11/21/birmingham-mum-if-they-keep-taking-my-kids-away-i-will-keep-having-them-66331-27686204/
edit, read the three pages if you can >:(
-
What will happen, in reality, is that those in social housing will remain unemployed, or have no incentive to better themselves, income-wise, thereby ensuring they don't lose the house.
In this way the houses will all become choked with career benefit claimants andf there will still be none available for those currently on the waiting lists.
It's change for change's sake.
-
Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...
But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers ... now would it .. :)
I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist. Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.
These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.
You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.
With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.
The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!
Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.
Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.
I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.
2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.
If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.
-
Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...
But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers ... now would it .. :)
I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist. Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.
These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.
You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.
With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.
The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!
Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.
Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.
I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.
2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.
If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.
If only it were that easy !! Both my wife and I are in reasonable jobs, both have worked ever since leaving full time education (except, in my case when I was out of work for a year after being made redundant ..... That's when I lost my bought house as I could get no assistance with the mortgage payments, but could get help with rent. Hey ho .. all in the past now). Anyway, we'd dearly love to be home owners again ... currently with a private landlord (in the same home we once "owned" and paying more than the mortgage was!). But ... there's always a "but" ...... there isn't a chance in hell of getting a mortgage to buy the garage, let alone a house! Our multiples would get us half a house if lenders were lending!
-
Of course ... if you ACTUALLY read the proposals .. and not the headlines ... it is only for NEW tenants - not existing tenants ...
But of course such headlines would not get all the lefties up in arms or sell papers ... now would it .. :)
I realise it is for new tenants, but these will, eventually, become the majority occupants of social housing and so the problems caused by this move will still exist. Private rents will (and are already starting to) skyrocket, making that unaffordable. Private tenants are often obliged to move on every 6 months as the Assured Shorthold tenancies come to term. Albeit with better incomes than when they entered social housing, the likelihood of a mortgage is slim to nil.
These potential pitfalls need to be addressed also.
You say about private rents are beginning to and already have skyrocketed! Well unfortunately for all of us this is just the cost of living in our great nation, which many of the scroungers have yet to come to terms with and still expect the tax payers to wipe their backsides for them. Rents are high, the cost of buying your own house is high also.
With the boom in property prices in recent years, rents in general (and in particular LHA or Local housing allowance - limits set by local government for housing benefit) have fallen in real terms.
The government aren't silly. They get rid of all the social housing to social landlords and housing associations, and pretend they are being good to the people by having a 'right to buy' scheme and very low prices. When in fact it is beneficial to the government. They get rid of all the houses, then bring in a wave of legislation to increase cost and red tape for landlords and make it easier for sponger workshy tenants to work the system and take everyone for a ride (not all of them of course). The same can be said for care/rest homes! Notice how the government don't have many now and have said people in their old age should stay at home!
Then what is even worse (even after the legislation), they start a nasty smear campaign, nation wide, against private landlords, when the fact is, the government, the housing market, and the country in general need private landlords but don't want to face the inconvenient truth.
Houses are unique, in that you go to a pub and buy a pint, you pay for it there and then, but tenants seem to think it's ok to with hold rent and do whatever they want because they live there! As said the country needs private landlords, byt they don't do it for nothing, it is a business, but I'm surprised they don't pack up and say 'sod you all'.
I think social tenants should have less cans of Fosters, take aways, go to the bloody social club less, and pay full market rates for their accommodation.
2ndly, when short terms tenancies come to an end, generally on a 6 month term, they are renewed, unless the tenant is a total scumbag, but if they are not then there is no problem. Better than this than allowing a bad tenant to get more rites by letting it lapse to an assured tenancy.
If they want the security of a long term place of accommodation, they should buy their own house.
And people on here have accused me of being elitist!! ::) ::) ::)
Your comments are extremely sweeping and derogatory to a lot of hard working individuals, and far from the truth. All the council tenants I have known over the years, and now, do not live that life style and just work to survive!!
In the South East the average property prices are 11X the average wage, which means 10s of thousands will never be able to obtain a mortgage, and I am one who was lucky enough to be in a marriage where we were both business professionals earning very good salaries so know what it is like on both sides of the coin!
What is so wrong anyway in the state building cheap, rent affordable houses for the masses who cannot afford to purchase, even on part rent part ownership schemes? We are very short of housing stock in this country, and especially in the South, so what is wrong with the socialist principle of providing workers with council houses.
As for the unemployed is it really ALL their fault? Of course not, it is the fault of the system that thousands cannot find good quality work! Build the council houses in thousands and it will employ hundreds of thousands in the construction and building supply industry alone! ;) ;) ;)
-
[edit] Self censorship FTW.
-
I don't think it's elitist at all. In any case I hate that word when it used in relation to people.
I think in my post I acknowledged the fact that not everyone is like that.
Well I live in Sunderland so perhaps my views might be influenced due to the fact this has a high rate of unemployment, welfare dependency and benefit fraud.
As said it's not elitist. I have nothing against fosters etc or the people who consume it, but i mentioned this as that is what they have. If we were talking about middle or upper class i would have mentioned theatre/ballet etc.
Perhaps i should've said: 'spend less on theire indulgent lifestyle' and pay full market rents'. I don't think they are derogatory either, they might be to scronugers, if they are then good.
-
Oh ... to have an indulgent lifestyle :-/
-
Just worked it out. It's the fact they want to free houses up for the boat people and the imigrants that just decend on us and demand benifits and housing. :-/
Well said skruntie babes. :y :y
-
I usually find, in general, that the people who shout the loudest over this kind of thing are just jealous ;D
I'm staying in my council house forever even, as is highly likely, when the missus gets another whopping pay rise next year.
I suppose folk would even find it strange that I have a gardener but, hey, I can afford it and I don't want to be cutting the grass when I can be watching Jeremy Kyle and supping my fosters.
-
Just worked it out. It's the fact they want to free houses up for the boat people and the imigrants that just decend on us and demand benifits and housing. :-/
Well said skruntie babes. :y :y
top of the queue if that happens,novelty factor alone. whos the dad?
-
I usually find, in general, that the people who shout the loudest over this kind of thing are just jealous ;D
I'm staying in my council house forever even, as is highly likely, when the missus gets another whopping pay rise next year.
;D ;D ;D ;D
I suppose folk would even find it strange that I have a gardener but, hey, I can afford it and I don't want to be cutting the grass when I can be watching Jeremy Kyle and supping my fosters.
;D ;D ;D
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnI-3ez5jIU[/media]
comentary has a serious note if you want.