Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

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!

[Jusme]

< 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....

[HolyCount]

< 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!!

[albitz]

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 ?

[Mysteryman]

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...




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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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!!

[albitz]

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.

[Mysteryman]

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.

[aaronjb]

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.

[albitz]

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.

[albitz]

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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

[albitz]

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? :-/

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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...

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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