Tory Right to buy policy any thoughts?

[egnsean]

Any thoughts/opinion's on the Tory's right to buy policy?

[skyhuck]

Stinks!!! IMO:thumbdown:

[difflock]

Curiously ambivalent Sean, and curious as to why this has been suggested.

(i) The presumably untertrodden HA tenants will now get a freebie, if they so wish(Power to the People n all that Right on Brother stuff)

So does HMG think that the various Housing associations have grown too powerful?, or indeed could be abusing their position, taking unfair? advantage of their Charitable status?

Regards,

M

[SteveA]

I guess it'd support those poor, struggling bankers..... more people in mortgage debt equals more money at the top.

It's fine if you are at the top, I guess?!

cheers, steve

[peatff]

They did this before which is why there is now no decent council housing for rent to people who can't afford to buy and all the terrace houses on the opposite side of the street where I live now are owned by the local shop owner and rented out for as much as the DSS will pay plus a bit on top.

[openspaceman]

I guess it'd support those poor, struggling bankers..... more people in mortgage debt equals more money at the top.

It's fine if you are at the top, I guess?!

cheers, steve

 

I haven't checked what the current government's policy is but agree with you that the money ends up with bankers, e.g. what is the total mortgage repayment on an average £250k house over 20 years?

 

In fact the banking sector really took off during the MIRAS period because of this.

 

Whilst I own my home and think it makes sense to do so as old age approaches, I think much of the social housing stock sold off under right to buy in the 80s has ended up in the ownership of private investors/landlords who are happy to sit on empty properties, despite the rates liability, in order to gain the capital increase. This has lead to much lower occupation than previously and has added to the need for more new housing.

[SteveA]

I haven't checked what the current government's policy is but agree with you that the money ends up with bankers, e.g. what is the total mortgage repayment on an average £250k house over 20 years?

 

In fact the banking sector really took off during the MIRAS period because of this.

 

Whilst I own my home and think it makes sense to do so as old age approaches, I think much of the social housing stock sold off under right to buy in the 80s has ended up in the ownership of private investors/landlords who are happy to sit on empty properties, despite the rates liability, in order to gain the capital increase. This has lead to much lower occupation than previously and has added to the need for more new housing.

 

Where people are choosing to leave homes empty for long periods of time I think they should be forced to sell, get it occupied or have it taken away.

Cheers, Steve

[ballibeg]

They did this before which is why there is now no decent council housing for rent to people who can't afford to buy and all the terrace houses on the opposite side of the street where I live now are owned by the local shop owner and rented out for as much as the DSS will pay plus a bit on top.

 

That's the free market fairy tale.

[difflock]

(i) The trueley frightening inefficiencies and costs of La or Govt managed and maintained houses were unsustainable.

(ii) The apparent "lack" of housing has more to do with every wee knocked up girl getting her own rent paid home, whilst the father(s) of her children are paid to live elsewhere.

(iii) Plus divorced couples living in seperate homes, often getting their rents paid, while sons and knocked up daughters occupy other discrete residences.

I not unreasonable believe that if those who find it hardest to afford a home or rent, lived a bit more communally, i.e. more persons under the one roof, it would be better for all.

Has anyone figures to hand?

PS

Do charitable Housing Associations be liable for rates?

I know the Commercial property rented to a charity is rates free for sure.

So is this behind the move?

Somebody gott pay!

PS

We never took mortgages, therefore never subsidized bankers.

[the village idiot]

(i) The trueley frightening inefficiencies and costs of La or Govt managed and maintained houses were unsustainable.

(ii) The apparent "lack" of housing has more to do with every wee knocked up girl getting her own rent paid home, whilst the father(s) of her children are paid to live elsewhere.

(iii) Plus divorced couples living in seperate homes, often getting their rents paid, while sons and knocked up daughters occupy other discrete residences.

I not unreasonable believe that if those who find it hardest to afford a home or rent, lived a bit more communally, i.e. more persons under the one roof, it would be better for all.

Has anyone figures to hand?

PS

Do charitable Housing Associations be liable for rates?

I know the Commercial property rented to a charity is rates free for sure.

So is this behind the move?

Somebody gott pay!

PS

We never took mortgages, therefore never subsidized bankers.

 

That sounds like a thoroughly sensible idea Difflock! Like it:thumbup: