Osbornes plans untenable in London, an account friend of mine worked out that live in London and buy a one bedroom flat you would need a salary of at least £120,000. If your married and have a child want could you rent in London if you are earning £40,000 a cupboard I would guess. This is way we need social housing for the average workers.
When I moved back down South I would have loved to have lived in London. As it is, in order to live in a reasonable area, and not be 6 grands worth of travel from the office, I had to settle on Woking. I earn reasonably well, and am able to afford a two bed flat here - but it still takes more than a third of my income (after tax) every month, and I have to pay a fifth of what's left on travel, bills, council tax and food etc take another 2 fifths - leaving me with the quandary of either entertaining myself or putting about 200 quid away per month towards a deposit. At that rate, it would take me about 20 years to get a deposit together to buy a shoebox, in a shit area, at TODAY'S prices.
London is fucked.
Succinctly put and accurate. The other thing that winds me up in all this is the 'Kirsty and Phil' fashionable property/location programmes. I know it's a nationwide programme and not just London, but it paints a very abnormal picture of what buying is all about. Either one of them with a couple having a drink in a local pub, Phil's about to call the estate agent and put and offer down for the couple. The estate agent says they accept. They all have a drink and celebrate. No. As my colleague was ranting the other day, that's when everything starts to go wrong. The cameras are nowhere to be seen when the buyers get hit with hidden fees or something goes wrong with the survey. It might seem a stupid point but those property programmes where mrs herbert suddenly becomes a 'project manager' are not what we need to be exposed to given the current state of the market.
I realise I should've put this under general things that annoy you thread but it did just pop into my head
I work with a guy who was on the Phil and Kirsty show. It took him 6 months after the show had aired to move in. On that show, whenever its in a city or large town they always bang on about cafe's, restaurants and boutiques. When I bought any of my homes the last thing I was thinking about was where was a coffee shop to sit outside.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
Not if disclosure is a requirement of your tenentsy agreement.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
The 'council'/responsible authority would have access to HMRC records .. big brother has arrived, in fact arrived years ago
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
Well, a programme about decent landlords with one property and who look after their tenants ain't gonna make for anything other than very dull TV is it? So, let's say a company sends an employee overseas for a couple of years. Something that happens countless times. Are you saying that it would be better that their UK house just sat empty for that time? Because that's what would happen if there was punitive taxation as the other option. There are so many flaws in a punitive taxation concept it's laughable. Not the least being that any Govt that tried to bring it in would be out of power at the next election. There may be as many as 2mn private landlords I guess that many of them vote. Meantime flooding the housing market with 5mn erstwhile rental properties, which the banks would just get the keys back to with the associated negative equity would destroy the economy at a stroke.
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
Well, a programme about decent landlords with one property and who look after their tenants ain't gonna make for anything other than very dull TV is it? So, let's say a company sends an employee overseas for a couple of years. Something that happens countless times. Are you saying that it would be better that their UK house just sat empty for that time? Because that's what would happen if there was punitive taxation as the other option. There are so many flaws in a punitive taxation concept it's laughable. Not the least being that any Govt that tried to bring it in would be out of power at the next election. There may be as many as 2mn private landlords I guess that many of them vote. Meantime flooding the housing market with 5mn erstwhile rental properties, which the banks would just get the keys back to with the associated negative equity would destroy the economy at a stroke.
What I would like to see and what I probably should've made clear is something to curtail buy to let. You are right emphasising that punitive tax is wrong, I wasn't thinking along the lines of punitive - I just agreed with Covered End's stance about something being done to curb this situation.
It's difficult either way I would imagine @cafcfan ? the government can't be seen to be involving themselves in what is a free market, but surely there are too many properties buy to let that contribute to this whole situation.
Re: the programme, I thought it was a decent programme that highlighted the mess well.
Where will people live that currently rent if all the properties are to be sold?
Are we advocating that there should be no private landlords in the UK?
Does it become impossible for students to rent so they all have to live at home with their parents and go to a local university?
Are we saying that everyone will have to live with their parents until they decide to, and are able to, buy?
Or are you, actually, advocating that the local authority should 'Nationalise' all the properties that are owned for anything other than owner occupier basis and then that would provide lots of social housing?
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
Well, a programme about decent landlords with one property and who look after their tenants ain't gonna make for anything other than very dull TV is it? So, let's say a company sends an employee overseas for a couple of years. Something that happens countless times. Are you saying that it would be better that their UK house just sat empty for that time? Because that's what would happen if there was punitive taxation as the other option. There are so many flaws in a punitive taxation concept it's laughable. Not the least being that any Govt that tried to bring it in would be out of power at the next election. There may be as many as 2mn private landlords I guess that many of them vote. Meantime flooding the housing market with 5mn erstwhile rental properties, which the banks would just get the keys back to with the associated negative equity would destroy the economy at a stroke.
What I would like to see and what I probably should've made clear is something to curtail buy to let. You are right emphasising that punitive tax is wrong, I wasn't thinking along the lines of punitive - I just agreed with Covered End's stance about something being done to curb this situation.
It's difficult either way I would imagine @cafcfan ? the government can't be seen to be involving themselves in what is a free market, but surely there are too many properties buy to let that contribute to this whole situation.
Re: the programme, I thought it was a decent programme that highlighted the mess well.
I guess the underlying problem is the historically low level of interest? I happen to have shares in a company that rents out doctors' surgeries. It can borrow the money to do it and still pay me a dividend yield of 5%. Something you could just not get from a deposit account. I supposed private landlords are looking at a similar figure? So with the prospects for capital growth factored in property investment is a no-brainer. It's interesting that the areas with the lowest property prices tend to be those that give the best yields. Higher interest rates would make other forms of saving more attractive while making buy-to-let mortgages more expensive at the same time.
I ranted on about it, and about the Tories proposals on the Election thread, and also discussed it with my local Tory candidate (who himself had 3 kids, and was renting somewhere), but the Tory party policy on housing stinks to high heaven.
They go on about having a home owning society, and that it is every persons ambition to own their own place which on the face of it makes sense, however the reality screams that their approach is absolute bollocks.
For a party that goes on about getting the economy right and we can all have jam tomorrow, they propose policies that fly in the face of economic reality, and as they're not stupid I suspect their behaviour is actually quite sinister and cynical.
The reason I say that is I believe it is in the interest of Tories and their supporters to keep property prices high, to keep their mates in financial services (surveying, banking, mortgages, insurance, estate agencies) and other attendant business linked to housing happy, and their noses in the trough of churn, getting a squeeze here there and everywhere ('it's a free market doncha know old chap'). It is clear that the status quo suits the Tory party, they will even lift inheritance tax on property and such like to keep in line with the massive and frankly sickening increase in house prices.
And their solution is to throw more fuel on the flames of this property rage by putting salt on the tails of housing association tenants, and drawing them into the melee and the mess, cynical and shitty and sinister Conservative economics red in tooth and claw and greed laden Conservatism at it's worst.
To shine a light on the moral and practical vacuum of the Tory housing policy (remember they reckon they are everybody's benevolent parents, giving a hand up to home ownership for all which they keep saying everybody wants) I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy? Buy scratch cards would be one of the most realistic plans under this government. The Tories don't believe in social housing, built first, and paid for later out of a slow accumulation of a modest rent.
They have not, and will not build realistic homes for people of modest incomes to live in in Lewisham, instead they will sit around their dinner tables snorting in delight that they can rent out a poxy one bedroom flat in Catford for £1150 per effing calendar month, competition from social housing might mean they couldn't rent out for such a high amount.
Free market economics running bare naked through our city making shire Conservatives rich at the expense of ordinary folk.
The answer to the crisis isn't to free up more bedrooms, to only build one when you sell one, to scour council districts to find empty spaces to capitalise on, to squeeze more money out of whoever it may be from whatever 'class'. The answer is to BUILD MORE HOMES NOW, to spend now to benefit later, like they're doing on the various transport schemes, the principal is the same.
if ever there was an area of policy that would stop me ever voting for that Bullenden club mob it is housing.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
Explain to me how living in a council house is a benefit? You pay your rent, you are meeting the terms of the tenancy. There will be things in the tenancy agreement about behaviour, such as abuse or criminal activity. But not telling the authorities how much you earn is neither.
And once again, this policy is aimed solely at London and the SE. Council places are often more expensive than the cheapest private rented in the north.
This is another daft housing policy, unless it is secretly about encouraging people to buy. And for all of you thinking that this will make space for vital key workers in London, dream on. Most councils have policies that won't even consider anyone earning above £16k for housing. They are deemed to be earning enough to be able to rent privately (even if it is just a room in a shared house).
Osborne's latest policy if it can be made to work will mean that estates become full only of the partially or temporarily employed, the disabled or those on benefits. A year or two down the line, all estate residents will be demonised and further harsh measures will be rolled out against "these people". It will not even begin to scratch the surface of the housing problem in London and may make it worse.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
Explain to me how living in a council house is a benefit?
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
Explain to me how living in a council house is a benefit? You pay your rent, you are meeting the terms of the tenancy. There will be things in the tenancy agreement about behaviour, such as abuse or criminal activity. But not telling the authorities how much you earn is neither.
And once again, this policy is aimed solely at London and the SE. Council places are often more expensive than the cheapest private rented in the north.
This is another daft housing policy, unless it is secretly about encouraging people to buy. And for all of you thinking that this will make space for vital key workers in London, dream on. Most councils have policies that won't even consider anyone earning above £16k for housing. They are deemed to be earning enough to be able to rent privately (even if it is just a room in a shared house).
Osborne's latest policy if it can be made to work will mean that estates become full only of the partially or temporarily employed, the disabled or those on benefits. A year or two down the line, all estate residents will be demonised and further harsh measures will be rolled out against "these people". It will not even begin to scratch the surface of the housing problem in London and may make it worse.
You would be benefiting from cheap rent, therefore I see it as a benefit
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
Well, a programme about decent landlords with one property and who look after their tenants ain't gonna make for anything other than very dull TV is it? So, let's say a company sends an employee overseas for a couple of years. Something that happens countless times. Are you saying that it would be better that their UK house just sat empty for that time? Because that's what would happen if there was punitive taxation as the other option. There are so many flaws in a punitive taxation concept it's laughable. Not the least being that any Govt that tried to bring it in would be out of power at the next election. There may be as many as 2mn private landlords I guess that many of them vote. Meantime flooding the housing market with 5mn erstwhile rental properties, which the banks would just get the keys back to with the associated negative equity would destroy the economy at a stroke.
What I would like to see and what I probably should've made clear is something to curtail buy to let. You are right emphasising that punitive tax is wrong, I wasn't thinking along the lines of punitive - I just agreed with Covered End's stance about something being done to curb this situation.
Maybe the government could ban Homes Under The Hammer.
I think the real issue here is that council properties have an indefinite lease. If it was cut back to, say, 3 years, each person's need could be reviewed on a regular basis. There should be no one told they have to leave immediately, but the council should primarily be catering for people in the greatest need. For those who are not in the greatest need, they should be paying close to market rents to allow the council help others.
I do take the point regarding rundown/problem areas resulting from a policy where high-paid workers are moved out of council housing. It just doesn't feel to me like a good enough reason for ordinary taxpayers to have to pick up the bill. If the rates are higher but not extortionate, the well-paid workers would be likely to stay on. The council flat I lived in before was nice, and much much cheaper than the less nice flats across the road.
I do take the point regarding rundown/problem areas resulting from a policy where high-paid workers are moved out of council housing. It just doesn't feel to me like a good enough reason for ordinary taxpayers to have to pick up the bill. If the rates are higher but not extortionate, the well-paid workers would be likely to stay on. The council flat I lived in before was nice, and much much cheaper than the less nice flats across the road.
How are ordinary taxpayers picking up the bill for people living in council housing? It is subsidised less than private renting and I suspect less than housebuilding for sale. There are a lot of people on here unhappy about "subsidies" to council tenants, but the reality is that it is the most economic form of housing people. And there is less criticism of the subsidy to private landlords and their renters and schemes like Help to Buy, which is also a subsidy, albeit to better off people.
In your post you say it's subsidised. Who is ultimately subsidising it? Ordinary taxpayers.
No problem with council flats/houses per se, but I do have an issue with well-paid people in them when less well-off people are in need. I am talking about people who wouldn't receive housing benefit because their earnings are too high
Not sure on Help to Buy so I can't pass comment, sorry. It sounds like a giveaway to existing landowners though, so you might be right.
As was mentioned above, devil is in the detail, but how on earth is this going to be administered? Council/HA calls tenant who is not on HB and asks "how much do you earn?" Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business". Rent stays the same.
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
Explain to me how living in a council house is a benefit?
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
That's some gamble, would you be prepared to risk life and limbs to make a living. Hardly living free of charge.
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
I should have said taxed at a higher rate.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
As I said on the previous page I am with Covered End here. I am not some anti landlord against anyone using property as an investment for their family as I mentioned on the other page. It is just those that takes tranches of property. It's just not sustainable - in London anyway. On that channel 4 dispatches programme last year (thread in CL somewhere) they followed buy to let landlords, developers, even property consultants now, taking large buildings and dicing them up into cubes barely livable just to get more rooms and more tenants. No one individual or body is doing anything to reign this in as far as I am aware (again, if incorrect please point out)
Parallels with football here ?
Chelsea loaning out loads of players that, if there were curbs on how many a Club could each season , would bring more "average" players onto the market....
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
That's some gamble, would you be prepared to risk life and limbs to make a living. Hardly living free of charge.
Well you say that but not everybody is a grunt. For example, the Army would pay you while you train to be a nurse. You then end up with a career once you leave.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as "council houses" any more. Most social housing is owned by housing associations and I doubt councils subsidise them as they are mainly limited companies. They buy on the cheap from developers as part of a (council) deal to build, hence their rents can be below the market rate. These HAs will be forced to sell their assets at rock bottom prices to people rich enough to buy just looking to make a quick buck and reduce the supply of affordable housing to WORKING families.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as "council houses" any more. Most social housing is owned by housing associations and I doubt councils subsidise them as they are mainly limited companies. They buy on the cheap from developers as part of a (council) deal to build, hence their rents can be below the market rate. These HAs will be forced to sell their assets at rock bottom prices to people rich enough to buy just looking to make a quick buck and reduce the supply of affordable housing to WORKING families.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
That's some gamble, would you be prepared to risk life and limbs to make a living. Hardly living free of charge.
Well you say that but not everybody is a grunt. For example, the Army would pay you while you train to be a nurse. You then end up with a career once you leave.
But to get trade or anything higher you have to have qualifications. Without qualifications you are not a shoe in for any job in the forces nowadays. I take your point though.
Comments
On that show, whenever its in a city or large town they always bang on about cafe's, restaurants and boutiques. When I bought any of my homes the last thing I was thinking about was where was a coffee shop to sit outside.
Tenant replies "F*** off, none of your business".
Rent stays the same.
I doubt it will happen, as no doubt, many politicians, are all benefiting from property.
If buy to rent became less attractive, you would suddenly see the market flooded, with sellers & the prices would tumble.
The main reason this is not happening, is surely self interest ?
No doubt there are some that try to get away with it but the taxman will be coming if a disgruntled tenant grasses them up. Not worth the risk.
A punitive tax, that would make buy to rent non profitable for sure.
Not hard to do. Massive hike in stamp duty. Massive hike in capital gains tax on rental properties etc.
There are so many flaws in a punitive taxation concept it's laughable. Not the least being that any Govt that tried to bring it in would be out of power at the next election. There may be as many as 2mn private landlords I guess that many of them vote. Meantime flooding the housing market with 5mn erstwhile rental properties, which the banks would just get the keys back to with the associated negative equity would destroy the economy at a stroke.
It's difficult either way I would imagine @cafcfan ? the government can't be seen to be involving themselves in what is a free market, but surely there are too many properties buy to let that contribute to this whole situation.
Re: the programme, I thought it was a decent programme that highlighted the mess well.
Are we advocating that there should be no private landlords in the UK?
Does it become impossible for students to rent so they all have to live at home with their parents and go to a local university?
Are we saying that everyone will have to live with their parents until they decide to, and are able to, buy?
Or are you, actually, advocating that the local authority should 'Nationalise' all the properties that are owned for anything other than owner occupier basis and then that would provide lots of social housing?
If you have to disclose wages for other benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit... It should be the same for living in a council house
I ranted on about it, and about the Tories proposals on the Election thread, and also discussed it with my local Tory candidate (who himself had 3 kids, and was renting somewhere), but the Tory party policy on housing stinks to high heaven.
They go on about having a home owning society, and that it is every persons ambition to own their own place which on the face of it makes sense, however the reality screams that their approach is absolute bollocks.
For a party that goes on about getting the economy right and we can all have jam tomorrow, they propose policies that fly in the face of economic reality, and as they're not stupid I suspect their behaviour is actually quite sinister and cynical.
The reason I say that is I believe it is in the interest of Tories and their supporters to keep property prices high, to keep their mates in financial services (surveying, banking, mortgages, insurance, estate agencies) and other attendant business linked to housing happy, and their noses in the trough of churn, getting a squeeze here there and everywhere ('it's a free market doncha know old chap'). It is clear that the status quo suits the Tory party, they will even lift inheritance tax on property and such like to keep in line with the massive and frankly sickening increase in house prices.
And their solution is to throw more fuel on the flames of this property rage by putting salt on the tails of housing association tenants, and drawing them into the melee and the mess, cynical and shitty and sinister Conservative economics red in tooth and claw and greed laden Conservatism at it's worst.
To shine a light on the moral and practical vacuum of the Tory housing policy (remember they reckon they are everybody's benevolent parents, giving a hand up to home ownership for all which they keep saying everybody wants) I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy? Buy scratch cards would be one of the most realistic plans under this government.
The Tories don't believe in social housing, built first, and paid for later out of a slow accumulation of a modest rent.
They have not, and will not build realistic homes for people of modest incomes to live in in Lewisham, instead they will sit around their dinner tables snorting in delight that they can rent out a poxy one bedroom flat in Catford for £1150 per effing calendar month, competition from social housing might mean they couldn't rent out for such a high amount.
Free market economics running bare naked through our city making shire Conservatives rich at the expense of ordinary folk.
The answer to the crisis isn't to free up more bedrooms, to only build one when you sell one, to scour council districts to find empty spaces to capitalise on, to squeeze more money out of whoever it may be from whatever 'class'. The answer is to BUILD MORE HOMES NOW, to spend now to benefit later, like they're doing on the various transport schemes, the principal is the same.
if ever there was an area of policy that would stop me ever voting for that Bullenden club mob it is housing.
Sorry about that rant, I feel better now.
And once again, this policy is aimed solely at London and the SE. Council places are often more expensive than the cheapest private rented in the north.
This is another daft housing policy, unless it is secretly about encouraging people to buy. And for all of you thinking that this will make space for vital key workers in London, dream on. Most councils have policies that won't even consider anyone earning above £16k for housing. They are deemed to be earning enough to be able to rent privately (even if it is just a room in a shared house).
Osborne's latest policy if it can be made to work will mean that estates become full only of the partially or temporarily employed, the disabled or those on benefits. A year or two down the line, all estate residents will be demonised and further harsh measures will be rolled out against "these people". It will not even begin to scratch the surface of the housing problem in London and may make it worse.
You would be benefiting from cheap rent, therefore I see it as a benefit
I think the real issue here is that council properties have an indefinite lease. If it was cut back to, say, 3 years, each person's need could be reviewed on a regular basis. There should be no one told they have to leave immediately, but the council should primarily be catering for people in the greatest need. For those who are not in the greatest need, they should be paying close to market rents to allow the council help others.
I do take the point regarding rundown/problem areas resulting from a policy where high-paid workers are moved out of council housing. It just doesn't feel to me like a good enough reason for ordinary taxpayers to have to pick up the bill. If the rates are higher but not extortionate, the well-paid workers would be likely to stay on. The council flat I lived in before was nice, and much much cheaper than the less nice flats across the road.
No problem with council flats/houses per se, but I do have an issue with well-paid people in them when less well-off people are in need. I am talking about people who wouldn't receive housing benefit because their earnings are too high
Not sure on Help to Buy so I can't pass comment, sorry. It sounds like a giveaway to existing landowners though, so you might be right.
Chelsea loaning out loads of players that, if there were curbs on how many a Club could each season , would bring more "average" players onto the market....