A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing, as their needs are already met. They buy the property. They have reduced the stock by one and have not changed demand at all, as their needs are still met.
My understanding of the social housing issue and my comment on working their way towards it is
That I amd my wife never qualified for a council or housing association property due to us not being within the benefits system,
Now if people did and fair play to them, were In a property that for whatever reason they were assisted by the tax payers or benefits system, and that they had contributed to with their % payment of their rent or however whatever it is called now, and now find themselves in a position after coming off the or out of the system that they can stand on their own two feet, but have built a home in the property, then for the right price they should be able to purchase that property
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing, as their needs are already met. They buy the property. They have reduced the stock by one and have not changed demand at all, as their needs are still met.
Do you want to read back what you've written there?
"A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing", lol......
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing, as their needs are already met. They buy the property. They have reduced the stock by one and have not changed demand at all, as their needs are still met.
This really isn't hard to grasp, surely? Ok hypothetical example:
Total Social Housing Demand: 850,000 people Total Social Housing Supply: 800,000 houses Waiting list is therefore 50,000 people Total housed is therefore 800,000 people
If one person buys their council house, this is what happens:
Demand: 849,999 people Supply: 799,999 houses Waiting list is still 50,000 people
The UK is obsessed with home ownership and has an economy intrinsically linked to this mindset which means every government will focus on finding ways for people to buy homes.
All very noble but I am not remotely convinced it is a good, long term solution for us, rich or poor. Ultimately, for me, it comes back to short term political outlook against a long term, generational asset.
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing, as their needs are already met. They buy the property. They have reduced the stock by one and have not changed demand at all, as their needs are still met.
This really isn't hard to grasp, surely? Ok hypothetical example:
Total Social Housing Demand: 850,000 people Total Social Housing Supply: 800,000 houses Waiting list is therefore 50,000 people Total housed is therefore 800,000 people
If one person buys their council house, this is what happens:
Demand: 849,999 people Supply: 799,999 houses Waiting list is still 50,000 people
QED
Like most logic - it is either flawed or selective. Aircraft are painted grey, elephants are grey - therefore elephants can fly!
The stock is reduced (as @rananegra points out) and therefore the 50,000 still on the waiting list now have statistically less chance of getting off that waiting list. Yes, no? You do the maths!!
If the right to buy had the criteria that a) the house is purchased at full market value and b) for every house sold a new one is built then I don't have a real problem with it.
On criteria a) I think it is only fair and equitable. If I were a private tenant, would I have the opportunity of demanding my landlord sells me the house and at a greatly reduced price? I think not - it would likely be met with a 'for your temerity I will now increase your rent/not renew your tenancy'.
Southendaddick. I would like to apologise for the personal nature of the comments I made about you and your family in my last post. I don't agree with your position but I overstepped the mark. It's too easy to say things online you wouldn't say to someone face to face.
So it's just a coincidence that the demand for housing has outstripped supply year on year? That rents and house prices have outstripped inflation / cost of living rises year on year, and that this has pretty much been the case since Right to buy began to impact on social housing availability?
I was recommended to look on Rightmove. I have already but I had another look. The cheapest self contained accommodation within the M25 is a "studio" - actually a single room with a toilet. You get to sleep next to your cooker. It is £800 per week. Council tax is around £80 per month. Bills, say another £100 if you are tight on heating and such luxuries. So a monthly outgoing of a minimum of £980 per month to have somewhere to eat and sleep. If you earn, say around £21000 (I'm guessing a few on this site earn considerably less than that) you should take home around £1500 per month. Lets say you need to spend around £200 a month on travel. So for working all week you get to spend around £10 per day on food or anything else you may choose to squander your money on. Right to buy has created a fantastic market for anyone able to get hold of a house and turn it into a collection of such "studios". After 10 years of working you can expect to have exactly fuck all to show for it - not even the security of knowing you can't be thrown out in a couple of months. Great policy.
if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
A family in Social Housing who buy their Social Housing Home, reduce the amount of Social Housing by one. They also reduce the demand for Social Housing by one.
Result is no change in the demand for Social Housing. It's not rocket science. The real additional demand for Social Hoising has come directly from the increase in immigration.
You want to try reading those links. Perhaps you'd understand clearly how HAs fund their development programmes.
A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing, as their needs are already met. They buy the property. They have reduced the stock by one and have not changed demand at all, as their needs are still met.
This really isn't hard to grasp, surely? Ok hypothetical example:
Total Social Housing Demand: 850,000 people Total Social Housing Supply: 800,000 houses Waiting list is therefore 50,000 people Total housed is therefore 800,000 people
If one person buys their council house, this is what happens:
Demand: 849,999 people Supply: 799,999 houses Waiting list is still 50,000 people
QED
Like most logic - it is either flawed or selective. Aircraft are painted grey, elephants are grey - therefore elephants can fly!
The stock is reduced (as @rananegra points out) and therefore the 50,000 still on the waiting list now have statistically less chance of getting off that waiting list. Yes, no? You do the maths!!
If the right to buy had the criteria that a) the house is purchased at full market value and b) for every house sold a new one is built then I don't have a real problem with it.
On criteria a) I think it is only fair and equitable. If I were a private tenant, would I have the opportunity of demanding my landlord sells me the house and at a greatly reduced price? I think not - it would likely be met with a 'for your temerity I will now increase your rent/not renew your tenancy'.
For the record I don't actually agree with RTB, I was only pointing out where people were going wrong on the whole demand/supply thing. It was a purely hypothetical scenario as I said. Whether you're statistically more or less likely to get a council house if you're on the waiting list and both the supply and demand fall is another question entirely.
What is the obsession with living inside the M25. It is,obviously, going to be more expensive the closer you get to Central London. AFKA is right, Greenhithe is cheaper. Move further out to Gravesend and I suspect it get's even cheaper.
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
I've no problem with my taxes going towards keeping social housing rents down -- people need somewhere to live, and some need financial help. But i don't see why they should be allowed to buy the public asset they are using at a discount...I don't accept that the 'need' to own your own place is the same.
As i pointed out in an earlier post, even our local Tory candidate thought the idea of a subsidised sell-off was madness. In our area (green-belt, expensive), building replacement social housing is going to be very tricky. And any current occupier of social housing would be mad not to take the hand-out on offer
if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
The fact is cost-of-living is high in this country and whether or not you want social housing in your area or more houses to be built, you still need housing for people in unskilled jobs who are never going to make enough to be able to buy or even rent in the private sector. This is especially true in the affluent areas where rents are pushed up by a rise in demand of high-earners, usually commuters or just rich non-locals who want to move somewhere nice - these are the people most likely to want to have cleaners, gardeners etc. or to have convenience stores or to not have to cook. Until these jobs can be automated or are done largely by people's teens/young adults who are still living at home or by part-timers who aren't the breadwinner then we either subsidise their living costs (as we do now) or encourage employers to pay a living wage. I don't see RTB being consistent with the former, I think RTB can only really work if it is part of a wider attempt to decrease the number of people in the welfare state.
I think RTB can only really work if it is part of a wider attempt to decrease the number of people in the welfare state.
What, like a cull?
I think you have to give them at least six months to find a job before you start a cull. If after, say a year, they can't or won't get a job then........
if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
I sometimes wonder how many houses (in my childhood home town) on the Downham council estate remain under the ‘social housing’ sector. I’d guess not many. My own parents bought under the Thatcher RTB scheme - not to do so would have been financial madness. They lived there for nearly 45 years until their deaths in 2000/2002.
My brother and me inherited the house. We sold it and put the money in the bank. We didn’t need the house because we each already had one. That house is just one of the many properties that is now unavailable to serve the people to whom it was intended. Yes it does twang my conscience … but not so much as to give the money away - just another product of Thatcher’s selfish society I guess.
If someone is able to pay their rent and also has the extra income to, over a time period of 5-10 years, save up a deposit for a mortgage, should they actually be in social housing on reduced rates (subsidised in some way by the taxpayer), or should they be in private rented accommodation ? Not clear at all to me that someone who could do this would be in the greatest need.
The dream of owning your own home. I'd say that is almost an impossible dream for both my sons, as long as I am on this earth anyway. What a change from when I was their age.
You are happy when you accept the world as it is not as you want it to be, so people will have to accept that they won't be home-owners and get on with their lives.
I was stunned when the RTB idea came out in the election - it seemed like a throwback to a bygone era but maybe it won them a few votes?
So it's just a coincidence that the demand for housing has outstripped supply year on year?
This graph may give you an indication of why that has happened and the fact it ain't going to go away.
Yes - if you are selective enough about your indexing you can make line graphs look quite spectacular. Your horizontal index covers 60 years. Your vertical index starts at 55,000 and ends at 73,000. Have I got C**T written on my forehead ;0)
The dream of owning your own home. I'd say that is almost an impossible dream for both my sons, as long as I am on this earth anyway. What a change from when I was their age.
You are happy when you accept the world as it is not as you want it to be, so people will have to accept that they won't be home-owners and get on with their lives.
I was stunned when the RTB idea came out in the election - it seemed like a throwback to a bygone era but maybe it won them a few votes?
I think you've got it. I can happily accept that I will pay rent for the rest of my life. I cannot happily accept that more than 50% of my earnings will go on renting a poky flat 20 miles from where I work.
What is the obsession with living inside the M25. It is,obviously, going to be more expensive the closer you get to Central London. AFKA is right, Greenhithe is cheaper. Move further out to Gravesend and I suspect it get's even cheaper.
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
I chose M25 as it is a useful boundary to indicate travelling distance into London. With all due respect if you think that earning less than £21 k a year means you shouldnt have the right to live within an hours travel of your workplace I think you are lacking due respect. "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure". Indeed. I am 55. I have run my own business, managed teams of other professionals, traveled widely and now find myself unable to live not only in the place I would like to call home, but not even within 30 miles of it. The idea of social housing was to provide secure, decent housing to ordinary people no matter their earning power. This is obviously a dreadful idea. Demand did not always outstrip supply whatever you may like to think. In the early 80's you might have to wait on a list for a few months, or go to a housing association rather than straight to the local authority, but you were likely to be housed. Local authorities were seen as a challenge to the power of Westminster. Therefore they were simply asset stripped.
And by the way the idea that earning less than £21k a year is so surprising is a symptom of what has happened to the average football fan in the last few decades.
Comments
That I amd my wife never qualified for a council or housing association property due to us not being within the benefits system,
Now if people did and fair play to them, were In a property that for whatever reason they were assisted by the tax payers or benefits system, and that they had contributed to with their % payment of their rent or however whatever it is called now, and now find themselves in a position after coming off the or out of the system that they can stand on their own two feet, but have built a home in the property, then for the right price they should be able to purchase that property
"A family in social housing don't have a demand for social housing", lol......
Total Social Housing Demand: 850,000 people
Total Social Housing Supply: 800,000 houses
Waiting list is therefore 50,000 people
Total housed is therefore 800,000 people
If one person buys their council house, this is what happens:
Demand: 849,999 people
Supply: 799,999 houses
Waiting list is still 50,000 people
QED
All very noble but I am not remotely convinced it is a good, long term solution for us, rich or poor. Ultimately, for me, it comes back to short term political outlook against a long term, generational asset.
The stock is reduced (as @rananegra points out) and therefore the 50,000 still on the waiting list now have statistically less chance of getting off that waiting list. Yes, no? You do the maths!!
If the right to buy had the criteria that a) the house is purchased at full market value and b) for every house sold a new one is built then I don't have a real problem with it.
On criteria a) I think it is only fair and equitable. If I were a private tenant, would I have the opportunity of demanding my landlord sells me the house and at a greatly reduced price? I think not - it would likely be met with a 'for your temerity I will now increase your rent/not renew your tenancy'.
I was recommended to look on Rightmove. I have already but I had another look. The cheapest self contained accommodation within the M25 is a "studio" - actually a single room with a toilet. You get to sleep next to your cooker. It is £800 per week. Council tax is around £80 per month. Bills, say another £100 if you are tight on heating and such luxuries. So a monthly outgoing of a minimum of £980 per month to have somewhere to eat and sleep. If you earn, say around £21000 (I'm guessing a few on this site earn considerably less than that) you should take home around £1500 per month. Lets say you need to spend around £200 a month on travel. So for working all week you get to spend around £10 per day on food or anything else you may choose to squander your money on. Right to buy has created a fantastic market for anyone able to get hold of a house and turn it into a collection of such "studios". After 10 years of working you can expect to have exactly fuck all to show for it - not even the security of knowing you can't be thrown out in a couple of months. Great policy.
if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-34076568.html
We can discuss my arrangers fee at a later date :-)
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
As i pointed out in an earlier post, even our local Tory candidate thought the idea of a subsidised sell-off was madness. In our area (green-belt, expensive), building replacement social housing is going to be very tricky. And any current occupier of social housing would be mad not to take the hand-out on offer
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34148850.html
The average earner could be mortgage free in a few short years.
Surely one would just negotiate and remove the small change from the rolls ashtray and buy the street
My brother and me inherited the house. We sold it and put the money in the bank. We didn’t need the house because we each already had one. That house is just one of the many properties that is now unavailable to serve the people to whom it was intended. Yes it does twang my conscience … but not so much as to give the money away - just another product of Thatcher’s selfish society I guess.
You are happy when you accept the world as it is not as you want it to be, so people will have to accept that they won't be home-owners and get on with their lives.
I was stunned when the RTB idea came out in the election - it seemed like a throwback to a bygone era but maybe it won them a few votes?