fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Thoughts on Right to Buy?
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I can't actually read the link, BBC banned here.
I'm surprised there were any left to buy even then!
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Stupid scheme, although don't blame individuals for taking advantage, as why shouldn't they?
What it's also done, apart from deplete housing stock and make people hostage to private letting values (which are obscene atm) has shifted social integration too. Where I grew up was very mixed when I was there, you had the poshos, the farmers, the council kids. Right to Buy allowed the council owners to buy cheap and, because it's seen as a respectable village, they then sold at profit. What it now means is just about nobody can afford to stay where they grew up, and it's become some horrible melting pot of middle class Daily Mail readers!
Putting aside my political dispositions, it's not healthy for areas to be of just one 'type' of person really.
Only if all sale proceeds are used to build more social housing. If discounted Council should receive equivalent proportion of future sale value. Stipulation they can’t be let out prior to council recovering full value
ps also people remaining in social housing when they can afford not to is just wrong in my book. Not sure if this still happens or if they’ve stopped this but used to go on
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Of course more social housing at a fair rent would also disincentivise the *need* to buy, so would work in reducing demand for houses and therefore lower prices for those who wanted to at the same time.
Agreed .More housing full stop though. We don’t build anywhere near enough to cover population growth
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
What we do build is wrong. Again, said village where I grew up, they're building 'executive homes' as they make the cash. What it actually needs is housing to replace the no-longer-social-housing, not more four bed detached at £600k+ that'll just keep the village unobtainable for all but the most wealthy!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Im all for giving wealth away to poorer citizens. Always seemed a bit of a random and unfair way to do it. No issue with anyone following the law at the time, for a lot of people I know it was a massive help, but giving someone tens of thousands of pounds for no reason will be.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
My personal belief in relation to RTB is that it is a disaster, and home ownership generally is hugely overrated and a bit of a con.
I think I have probably made mortgage payments in my life of around £140k and I've got no more than 33% equity in my current house.
Given the choice / opportunity I'd happily pay a council rent which by my reckoning would have been half that amount. That'll free up all that money to put in a pension or other investment that I could realise on retirement without selling my home.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
I think I have probably made mortgage payments in my life of around £140k and I've got no more than 33% equity in my current house.
Given the choice / opportunity I'd happily pay a council rent which by my reckoning would have been half that amount. That'll free up all that money to put in a pension or other investment that I could realise on retirement without selling my home.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Does he really believe this I wonder?
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Here's Rachel Reeves doing her own impression of Anderson but in less explicit terms
As if anti Zionism is an offensive view point
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
As if anti Zionism is an offensive view point
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
What a c**t
It looks very dodgy, shows as suspicious on deepfake scanning websites, seemingly no one can post a link to the full clip, and there is no mention of that line in the transcript of her speech from that event.
Hardly deflecting.
If anyone is able to prove it then fair enough.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. The intention of council housing was just that. Perhaps some kind of deposit saving scheme instead or a mortgage guarantee so you can regulate stock better?
Yeah this is a fair point.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
As many fascists are.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If they’d have been as many Muslims in the UK as Jews at the time of Oswald Mosley he’d have hated them at least equally if not more. Given that Hasidic Jews aside Jewish people tend to blend in more easily in Europe than Muslims who even if the dress more traditional European tend to have darker skin. If you don’t understand that then you really don’t know what facism is.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The way it is done it's a recipe for problems, but something has to be done to enable people to own homes.
A lot of wealth disparity is from property ownership. People who rent pay more over a lifetime than someone with a mortgage and they end up with no asset wealth to show for it. Deeply unfair.
But proceeds HAVE to go towards replenishing the market, others there is insufficient supply and you get all the problems associated with that we see today.
This may be unpopular, but it's also about what those that buy the homes do with them at selling point. As it's then an asset often it's just a matter of sell to the highest bidder. Areas now have numerous rental properties that were bought in the right to buy scheme. A lot of the time this has been due to selling the property on the death of the original tenant, but it is something that needs to be looked at. Areas are losing that sense of community because of this.
I've wondered in the past if a 50% share, with the council retaining the other 50% would be feasible. More affordable but enables people to obtain some capital in property. Plus at selling time it gives the opportunity for families and those in greater need to get the property instead of BtL or the property development bastards who just want to flip it for as much as possible.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There was a documentary years ago about Waltham Forest Council, stuck in my mind because I lived there at the time. It was a fly on the wall thing about the housing department.
They said 8 out of 10 houses sold in the borough under RTB were now owned by private landlords and only 1 in 10 had been replaced with new housing. Bet both those stats are a lot worse now.
Council were having huge problems as there was a cap on how much they could pay a week for private rent and it was well below what private landlords charged so they were having to take money from other departments to make up the shortfall.
Whole scheme was a recipe for disaster. What did they think was going to happen when they removed massive amounts of social housing and didn't replace it?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The answer to the final paragraph is that it gives capital an opportunity to seek rent without any real enterprise, classic Tory philosophy
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Thing is Shared Ownership always feels like a shit deal. I get a mortgage AND rent? I do up my house and half goes to the landlord? Would be interested to see the sales data to see if people really want it.
Clearly the romantic idea of “owning your (specific) house” is nonsense. Most use the capital to move somewhere else (nicer).
Really think the best solution is some kind of saving scheme or govt backed mortgage so you get the benefit but without having to sell a council house off. Costs just the same, same benefits to long term renters.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There’s one doing the rounds of Trump talking about how he has a tiny penis. This one has been made deliberately obvious but what struck me is that given all the shit he talks AI Trump rants might not be so easily spotted and on the other side of the coin given how gullible the MAGA supporters are they’d literally believe any AI output of Biden.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Tories doing the rounds over the last couple of days not exactly covering themselves in glory regarding Lee Anderson. Very reminiscent of the Labour antisemitism row. They can’t even bring themselves to admit it was racist. On top of that they had Shapps comments in the house that were not so dissimilar to Anderson’s minus the direct reference to Sadiq Khan and the same for Braverman in her newspaper article. Pretty clear that the Tories have an issue with Islamophobia and the big difference between them and the Labour antisemitism row is that Labour tried to sweep it under the carpet while the Tories are trying to weaponise Islamophobia as a platform to run a reelection campaign on.
My first place was a shared ownership flat, not ideal but gave me a foot on the ladder. Rent element just need to be tweaked/lowered but concept should work
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
If the alternative is all rent and all going to your landlord then a mortgage and you ending up with home ownership seems a much better alternative.
Also, if it was owned by a council it wouldn't be as bad as a private landlord IMO.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I just know when I was house hunting I had a visceral reaction to shared ownership. I’m sure on a logical level it makes sense but the vibes are off. Whereas saving into a deposit account feels different IMO
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but while saving into that deposit account you'll also be having to pay rent at the same time, so you're effectively doing the same thing but with larger sums of rent.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No you misunderstand. The idea is that the govt pays an amount into a deposit savings account equivalent to the discount each year you’re in social housing. Then after X years you can withdraw this, maybe with a special mortgage and buy what you want.
