Mark wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:19:19 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 11/02/2018 19:56, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
On 11/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
And we still had union bosses on over £100k living in council houses
subsidised by nurses and teachers.

Bless. And they were the only well off living in council houses, then?

But then the likes of you don't want anyone living in a council
house to
ever do well. Goes against everything you believe.

Those who 'do well' and live in a council house, hopefully can afford to
buy.

I have zero objection to anyone being allowed to buy the council house
they live in, if and when their circumstances change. At a true market
value, and that money going towards building more.

I don't have a problem with them getting a discount if they (their
family) have to continue to live in the property and can't churn it for
a windfall profit.

I do, the discounts were eye watering. There was no need for 50+%
discounts. 10% would have been more than sufficient.

I guess it depends on how long they were living there. Long-term
tenants could have paid for it many times over.

How come when a private tenant pays enought rent to buy a buy-to-let
flat "many times over" no-one thinks it should entitle the tenant to
take the buy-to-let landlord's windfall capital asset away from him?
(Well, except me anyway.)


the 3 years restriction on re-sale has a zero missing off the end, IMHO

I know someone who bought their father's house. It was a very good
investment.

Houses should be for living in. One of the big problems is people
consider them an "investment".


--

Roger Hayter