Council Houses

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

There was time when council houses were fairly readily available, you may have to go on a waiting list until someone moved out of a property but eventually you moved up the list and into a house/flat.

The flaw with the selling off of the nations housing stock, which did indeed make a great many people homeowners, with a tremendous deal/ discount for those that qualified, is that they were sold for way less than the market value (with the discount) and once gone weren't replaced.

If the house was worth £100,000 (to make the figures simpler), then an occupant that had been residing there for 5 years got something like a 60% discount so the govt / treasury get £40k but are actually wiping £60k from the countries coffers. The figure may only be an 'on paper' amount but then a lot of 'wealth' is.
Now the tenant come house buyer could have been claiming their rent over that period, govt. pays rent then gives a discount on house price based on the amount that they themselves have already forked out.
so in some cases the govt paid the rent for the qualifying period, then sold the house off at a discounted rate,

so , the country is out of 'profit' by...
5 years rent
£60 k discount
and there is 1 less needed council house.


What I reckon would've been a better option is....

That very same house ( £100k value), after the same 5 year qual. period, if the tenant had themselves been paying the rent, then instead of selling them the house to them, give them back all of the rent paid to use as a deposit on a house they wish to buy (paid direct to building soc to avoid fraudulent claims).

so, the country loses 5 years rent, but still has the bricks and mortar that is the house, which in that period may have risen in value more than the rent paid back anyway. That way the new home owner gets some assistance to get on the property ladder, and there is still a council house for the next person that needs it. If they want to buy earlier, say 2 or 3 years then if they have paid the rent then give them that amount back as it makes the house available again.

I reckon this would have been a far better option than what was done, sure they may never end up collecting rent as they would always be giving it back, but the council houses would still be there for those that need them..... as originally intended.

 

[sirblue57]

what about just having a cheap affordable housing scheme like other countries? oh, wait, we had that once. then aunt mags came along and f###ked it all up, bad aunty.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

There was time when council houses were fairly readily available, you may have to go on a waiting list until someone moved out of a property but eventually you moved up the list and into a house/flat.

The flaw with the selling off of the nations housing stock, which did indeed make a great many people homeowners, with a tremendous deal/ discount for those that qualified, is that they were sold for way less than the market value (with the discount) and once gone weren't replaced.

If the house was worth £100,000 (to make the figures simpler), then an occupant that had been residing there for 5 years got something like a 60% discount so the govt / treasury get £40k but are actually wiping £60k from the countries coffers. The figure may only be an 'on paper' amount but then a lot of 'wealth' is.
Now the tenant come house buyer could have been claiming their rent over that period, govt. pays rent then gives a discount on house price based on the amount that they themselves have already forked out.
so in some cases the govt paid the rent for the qualifying period, then sold the house off at a discounted rate,

so , the country is out of 'profit' by...
5 years rent
£60 k discount
and there is 1 less needed council house.


What I reckon would've been a better option is....

That very same house ( £100k value), after the same 5 year qual. period, if the tenant had themselves been paying the rent, then instead of selling them the house to them, give them back all of the rent paid to use as a deposit on a house they wish to buy (paid direct to building soc to avoid fraudulent claims).

so, the country loses 5 years rent, but still has the bricks and mortar that is the house, which in that period may have risen in value more than the rent paid back anyway. That way the new home owner gets some assistance to get on the property ladder, and there is still a council house for the next person that needs it. If they want to buy earlier, say 2 or 3 years then if they have paid the rent then give them that amount back as it makes the house available again.

I reckon this would have been a far better option than what was done, sure they may never end up collecting rent as they would always be giving it back, but the council houses would still be there for those that need them..... as originally intended.

Control.
When people could own their own homes they had an asset, which meant they had to work to keep it and maintain it.
Control.
Want to put the squeeze on the scum and the criminals, sell all the houses around them to tenants, who then sell up to move away from such subhuman filth (which comes at a small loss by comparison) and means the dirt bags all end up centralised. You know the term 'sink hole estates'.
Control.
Make people aspire to work and trade up.
Control.
Having great swathes of the country tied up by non rent paying people, and having that attitude expand would have seen the country in hock.
Control.
If you have the option of owning the building you live in at a point in the future, you look after it in the meantime, and keep your nose clean so that you qualify.

Politics is never as simple as ABC. Very clever people dream up situations of Control, and when it appears to be a losing battle they change the rules so Control is retaken.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Control.
When people could own their own homes they had an asset, which meant they had to work to keep it and maintain it. 'giving away' the countries assets was a bad idea
Control.
Want to put the squeeze on the scum and the criminals, sell all the houses around them to tenants, who then sell up to move away from such subhuman filth (which comes at a small loss by comparison) and means the dirt bags all end up centralised. You know the term 'sink hole estates'.
Control.
Make people aspire to work and trade up.they would be, as by working and paying the rent they would be able to buy a home.... just not the one that someone else may need
Control.
Having great swathes of the country tied up by non rent paying people, and having that attitude expand would have seen the country in hock.great swathes weren't paying the rent and then got 'the discount'
Control.
If you have the option of owning the building you live in at a point in the future, you look after it in the meantime, and keep your nose clean so that you qualify.obv. if they trash the said gaff then that gets deducted

Politics is never as simple as ABC. Very clever people dream up situations of Control, and when it appears to be a losing battle they change the rules so Control is retaken.

why should new estates of affordable housing be built for so called 'key workers' though cos they can't afford the house prices ? neither can anyone else either ffs. caused partly by the inflated market after selling off the countries housing stock.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

Why increase stock for people not paying?

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

You seem to have missed the point. By providing a discount, it meant those that didn't pay before, had to in future so they could keep their asset.
The idea was to force people to work to keep their house, or have it taken off them.
I don't understand the 'someone else may need' point.
Trashing the gaff meant they had to live in it trashed. See the intelligent option?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

You seem to have missed the point. By providing a discount, it meant those that didn't pay before, had to in future so they could keep their asset.
The idea was to force people to work to keep their house, or have it taken off them.
I don't understand the 'someone else may need' point.
Trashing the gaff meant they had to live in it trashed. See the intelligent option?

well it was never 'their' asset in the 1st place, same as it isn't 'theirs' if they are renting off a private landlord.

someone else may need.... the list of people waiting for housing.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Why increase stock for people not paying?

what stock is being increased for those not paying, the house belonged to the treasury and still would if not sold off.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

well it was never 'their' asset in the 1st place, same as it isn't 'theirs' if they are renting off a private landlord.

someone else may need.... the list of people waiting for housing.

Maybe I am being stupid because I still can't see the issue. If you are going to throw someone out of a dwelling just to move someone else in, what happens to those you threw out?

 

[sirblue57]

there is a large element of right wing thinking here,
not everybody didn't pay rent
not everybody didn't look after the property

it was a political decision to control the working class, nothing more.
the selling point was "we want everyone to have the chance to own their own home", well look at the situation today,
people cannot afford deposits for their own home.
thanks to the banks f###king up, its now harder than ever to get a mortgage
private landlords are becoming more like the "rachman" era.( check your history )

other countries have low cost social housing, but because the "greed is good" culture has such a strong hold here, its looked down on by the more fortunate, at the expense of the less fortunate. control? keep that insulting phrase, i prefer "fairness" or "justice" not that there is much of that today.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Maybe I am being stupid because I still can't see the issue. If you are going to throw someone out of a dwelling just to move someone else in, what happens to those you threw out?

who said anything about throwing them out ?
it is their choice that if they have paid the rent and wish to go out and buy a property then they can, if they wish to carry on living there and paying the rent then they can, doesn't mean they get it all back at a later date,(still the 5 years) and the country still has housing stock... appreciating housing stock. This is as opposed to flogging the council house to them for a song and then not having anywhere for the next on the list & reducing the nations assets.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

there is a large element of right wing thinking here,
not everybody didn't pay rent
not everybody didn't look after the property

it was a political decision to control the working class, nothing more.
the selling point was "we want everyone to have the chance to own their own home", well look at the situation today,
people cannot afford deposits for their own home.
thanks to the banks f###king up, its now harder than ever to get a mortgage
private landlords are becoming more like the "rachman" era.( check your history )

other countries have low cost social housing, but because the "greed is good" culture has such a strong hold here, its looked down on by the more fortunate, at the expense of the less fortunate. control? keep that insulting phrase, i prefer "fairness" or "justice" not that there is much of that today.

Sigh!

 

[Goat]

Not quite what the point of this thread is really.

But your figures are wrong, people had to live in the houses for upwards up 20 years to gain any sort of "discount".

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

there is a large element of right wing thinking here,
not everybody didn't pay rent
not everybody didn't look after the property

it was a political decision to control the working class, nothing more.
the selling point was "we want everyone to have the chance to own their own home", well look at the situation today,
people cannot afford deposits for their own home.
thanks to the banks f###king up, its now harder than ever to get a mortgage
private landlords are becoming more like the "rachman" era.( check your history )

other countries have low cost social housing, but because the "greed is good" culture has such a strong hold here, its looked down on by the more fortunate, at the expense of the less fortunate. control? keep that insulting phrase, i prefer "fairness" or "justice" not that there is much of that today.

there is and isn't tbh, because at the end of the day the houses would still be there for those that need them and the nation would still have assets.

I know a lot benefited from being able to buy the said house, and I expected that most protestations would come from them, but I think this would've benefited both parties and also the 3rd party that needs housing.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

who said anything about throwing them out ?
it is their choice that if they have paid the rent and wish to go out and buy a property then they can, if they wish to carry on living there and paying the rent then they can, doesn't mean they get it all back at a later date,(still the 5 years) and the country still has housing stock... appreciating housing stock. This is as opposed to flogging the council house to them for a song and then not having anywhere for the next on the list & reducing the nations assets.

The nations assets are its people and the work they do to create wealth. The buy your own homes move was a sneaky way of forcing people that had previously been to happy to sit on their arse and live off the hard working to get out there and get a job and earn the standard of living they had become accustomed too.
Why is that so hard to see? It wasn't some mass giveaway, it was a means of forcing a certain element into a position they had never occupied before.