While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

These people clearly don't need to sponge off the taxpayer for houses.
They should be chucked out to make way for people that do need it.

This is OK as far as it goes but should one set such standards after the
fact. Or in other words, if there are children attending local schools and
the residents work locally and there is nothing else affordable nearby, ad
and your new rule came in it is not fair to change the rules is it.

After all, since the councils have allowed so many of these houses to be
purchased with the permission of governments over the years, its a bit like
the pot calling the kettle black as me old gran used to say.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council
houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes
concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

These people clearly don't need to sponge off the taxpayer for houses.
They should be chucked out to make way for people that do need it.

harry wrote

While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the
number of council houses with two or three cars,

Hardly surprising given that quite a few have
more than one person who works living in them.

parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.

Hardly surprising given that they weren't built with garages etc.

BMWs. Audis.

Every single one of them eh ?

New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

These people clearly don't need to sponge off the taxpayer for houses.

You dont know that those with BMWs. Audis. New cars.
Caravans. Motor homes. are doing that, bigot boy.

They should be chucked out to make
way for people that do need it.

Those that dont have enough of a clue to
have got qualified to get a decent job eh ?

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:29:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

snip

It's all down to what would be considered fair and reasonable by the
majority.

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no reason) by the majority
should be means-tested.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council houses for a
profit to pay any back to the council / us?

If not it's like going to the checkouts just as they open a new one
and walking straight to the front, rather than allowing some of those
already queuing to move forward ... or going down the outside of
traffic who have obeyed the signs and moved over in plenty of time.

I'm not blaming anyone for taking such things up if offered, I'm just
saying some might consider it unfair / immoral (like with Harry and
his exorbitant, index linked and guaranteed for 20+ years FIT that is
paid to him by the rest of us electricity users that he only took up
as a cash cow).

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/2016 09:27, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:29:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

snip

It's all down to what would be considered fair and reasonable by the
majority.

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no reason) by the majority
should be means-tested.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.


2 things. Council housing was not built with 'taxpayers' money'. It was
built with loans, repaid with rent. Most LA housing current accounts now
operate in balance or surplus. Some councils actually build using the
surplus.

On your second point, I think the situation you outline really is the
exception. When it happens, I'd support Brian's post (above).

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council houses for a
profit to pay any back to the council / us?


Er, no - that's part of the point!

If not it's like going to the checkouts just as they open a new one
and walking straight to the front, rather than allowing some of those
already queuing to move forward ... or going down the outside of
traffic who have obeyed the signs and moved over in plenty of time.

I'm not blaming anyone for taking such things up if offered, I'm just
saying some might consider it unfair / immoral (like with Harry and
his exorbitant, index linked and guaranteed for 20+ years FIT that is
paid to him by the rest of us electricity users that he only took up
as a cash cow).


Agreed on both points :-)


--
Cheers, Rob

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

It's all down to what would be considered
fair and reasonable by the majority.

Nope. Its never going to be practical to demand that someone
who is living in a council house must move out if they get a decent
job after they have been allowed to move into a council house etc.

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no
reason) by the majority should be means-tested.

Sure, but it wouldn't be viable to insist that anyone who ever
ends up with a decent job must move out immediately etc.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.

Most jurisdictions do have the rent payable vary
with the means of the individuals renting them.

Being allowed to buy them is a quite separate issue.

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council
houses for a profit to pay any back to the council / us?

In fact Maggie deliberately allowed them to be
sold for well under the market value of the house.

If not it's like going to the checkouts just as they open a new one
and walking straight to the front, rather than allowing some of those
already queuing to move forward ... or going down the outside of
traffic who have obeyed the signs and moved over in plenty of time.

I'm not blaming anyone for taking such things up if offered, I'm just
saying some might consider it unfair / immoral (like with Harry and
his exorbitant, index linked and guaranteed for 20+ years FIT that is
paid to him by the rest of us electricity users that he only took up
as a cash cow).

Trouble is that it is also undesirable to kick
those who are renting a council house out when
someone in that house gets a decent job too.

And what do you do when say one of the kids puts the effort
into getting qualified for a decent job, gets that decent well
paid job, require that he/she isnt allowed to live in that house
with their parents ?

In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:48:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

It's all down to what would be considered
fair and reasonable by the majority.

Nope. Its never going to be practical to demand that someone
who is living in a council house must move out if they get a decent
job after they have been allowed to move into a council house etc.

Whilst I agree it isn't generally good or nice I see no reason why it
can't be done. That's the whole point of renting (especially over
freehold) in that it can be removed at any time (with sufficient
notice etc) And I'm not talking about someone who goes from 16 hours
work a week to 30, but someone who *really* could afford to stand on
their own feet more (typically when you get two or more full time wage
earners in the same property).

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no
reason) by the majority should be means-tested.

Sure, but it wouldn't be viable to insist that anyone who ever
ends up with a decent job must move out immediately etc.

No, not immediately and with the caveats mentioned above. It's just
the same as being on the dole or disability and then being able to
fund yourself or you get better etc. Those 'benefits' are quite
rightly withdrawn as they are only affordable (by the rest of us) for
the 'genuine' cases.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.

Most jurisdictions do have the rent payable vary
with the means of the individuals renting them.

Ok. I've never rented so don't know the details.

Being allowed to buy them is a quite separate issue.

Agreed, but still part of the same 'bigger picture' (supply and demand
of social housing).

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council
houses for a profit to pay any back to the council / us?

In fact Maggie deliberately allowed them to be
sold for well under the market value of the house.

I don't care who came up with the idea. ;-)

If not it's like going to the checkouts just as they open a new one
and walking straight to the front, rather than allowing some of those
already queuing to move forward ... or going down the outside of
traffic who have obeyed the signs and moved over in plenty of time.

I'm not blaming anyone for taking such things up if offered, I'm just
saying some might consider it unfair / immoral (like with Harry and
his exorbitant, index linked and guaranteed for 20+ years FIT that is
paid to him by the rest of us electricity users that he only took up
as a cash cow).

Trouble is that it is also undesirable to kick
those who are renting a council house out when
someone in that house gets a decent job too.

It's not undesirable to someone who doesn't have a job at all and
nowhere at all to live. This is only an issue when there is
insufficient private and social housing to go round. As when that
get's solved we won't have to make these 'difficult' decisions.

And what do you do when say one of the kids puts the effort
into getting qualified for a decent job, gets that decent well
paid job, require that he/she isnt allowed to live in that house
with their parents ?

I didn't say it was easy, just that *something* can be done in the
more blatant cases.

*If* in your above case the Council was renting the property at less
than the market rate, then maybe they could increase the rent to bring
it more in line with a private let?

They have gone some way towards this with the bedroom tax (assuming
it's still running)?

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

It's all down to what would be considered
fair and reasonable by the majority.

Nope. Its never going to be practical to demand that someone
who is living in a council house must move out if they get a decent
job after they have been allowed to move into a council house etc.

Whilst I agree it isn't generally good or
nice I see no reason why it can't be done.

It obviously can be done but politically impossible.

That's the whole point of renting (especially over freehold) in
that it can be removed at any time (with sufficient notice etc)

That isnt the whole point of renting. Plenty of jurisdictions
have a tradition of renting rather than owning.

And I'm not talking about someone who goes from 16 hours
work a week to 30, but someone who *really* could afford to
stand on their own feet more (typically when you get two or
more full time wage earners in the same property).

All you are talking about is renting something privately given
how hard it is for someone to buy a house in that situation.

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no
reason) by the majority should be means-tested.

Sure, but it wouldn't be viable to insist that anyone who ever
ends up with a decent job must move out immediately etc.

No, not immediately and with the caveats mentioned above.
It's just the same as being on the dole or disability and then
being able to fund yourself or you get better etc. Those
'benefits' are quite rightly withdrawn as they are only
affordable (by the rest of us) for the 'genuine' cases.

Sure, but it isnt viable to kick people out when
they do get a decent job or one of their kids does.

That would discourage those in council houses from
getting qualified or encouraging their kids to do that.

That's what I meant about that approach not being practical,
not that it isnt physically possible to do it that way.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.

Most jurisdictions do have the rent payable vary
with the means of the individuals renting them.

Ok. I've never rented so don't know the details.

I meant renting social housing, not renting in general.

Being allowed to buy them is a quite separate issue.

Agreed, but still part of the same 'bigger picture'
(supply and demand of social housing).

Sure, but again, that's a consideration when deciding whether
to allow tenants to buy the council house they are renting.

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council
houses for a profit to pay any back to the council / us?

In fact Maggie deliberately allowed them to be
sold for well under the market value of the house.

I don't care who came up with the idea. ;-)

I don't either, that was just a comment on who did that.

Most jurisdictions that do allow the current tenant
to buy the house they are renting do sell the property
for less than the market value of the house, essentially
because it isnt considered to be desirable for the govt
or LA or council to be making a profit on that sale.

If not it's like going to the checkouts just as they open a new one
and walking straight to the front, rather than allowing some of those
already queuing to move forward ... or going down the outside of
traffic who have obeyed the signs and moved over in plenty of time.

I'm not blaming anyone for taking such things up if offered, I'm just
saying some might consider it unfair / immoral (like with Harry and
his exorbitant, index linked and guaranteed for 20+ years FIT that is
paid to him by the rest of us electricity users that he only took up
as a cash cow).

Trouble is that it is also undesirable to kick
those who are renting a council house out when
someone in that house gets a decent job too.

It's not undesirable to someone who doesn't
have a job at all and nowhere at all to live.

There arent anyone who has nowhere to live.

This is only an issue when there is insufficient
private and social housing to go round.

That is never the case. The worst that
actually happens is that more get to share
what is available than they would prefer.

As when that get's solved we won't
have to make these 'difficult' decisions.

There is no difficult decision.

And what do you do when say one of the kids puts
the effort into getting qualified for a decent job, gets
that decent well paid job, require that he/she isnt
allowed to live in that house with their parents ?

I didn't say it was easy, just that *something*
can be done in the more blatant cases.

But it makes no sense to be punishing those who
do put the most effort into bettering themselves.

*If* in your above case the Council was renting the
property at less than the market rate, then maybe they could
increase the rent to bring it more in line with a private let?

But if there is a shortage of houses for rent, and the private
landlords are exploiting that situation by charging what they
can get in that very tight rental market, is it morally acceptable
for the LA to be charging those who have chosen to get qualified
for a decent well paying job, those very high rents just because
they have got off their arse and done that. ?

They have gone some way towards this with
the bedroom tax (assuming it's still running)?

Yes they have, and plenty of the voters think that approach stinks.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:27:54 AM UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:29:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

SNIP

Are there any bonds for when people sell these council houses for a
profit to pay any back to the council / us?


There is if you sell within 5 years, sliding payback scale.

Clawback clauses can be suprisingly common with commercial land sales, hey if you make a profit in next 20 years with residential we want a cut.

The `Help to buy` schemes circulating would be more of the `majority`s dissaproval if you start looking at them.

Operates as a `Help large housebuilders profit` scheme, frankly would have been cheaper to just write Barrat a large cheque and cut out all the middle men.

Having had a buyer who had pretty much very rock available thrown in their path when they attempted to use Scottish `Help to buy` with a private residential sale , under no illusion that the schemes were only ever aimed at subsdising large housebuilders and artificially inflating new build prices.

Housing Associations can be some of the shadiest operators of all landlords..

In article ,
Adam Aglionby wrote:
Having had a buyer who had pretty much very rock available thrown in
their path when they attempted to use Scottish `Help to buy` with a
private residential sale , under no illusion that the schemes were only
ever aimed at subsdising large housebuilders and artificially inflating
new build prices.

Housing Associations can be some of the shadiest operators of all
landlords.

Surely that can't be so? After all the whole idea of privatizing things is
it gives a better deal to everyone? Or could it be we were lied to?

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 13:12:56 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Having had a buyer who had pretty much very rock available thrown in
their path when they attempted to use Scottish `Help to buy` with a
private residential sale , under no illusion that the schemes were only
ever aimed at subsdising large housebuilders and artificially inflating
new build prices.

Housing Associations can be some of the shadiest operators of all
landlords.

Surely that can't be so? After all the whole idea of privatizing things is
it gives a better deal to everyone? Or could it be we were lied to?

No! Never.


NT

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:02:50 +0100, News
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

I think it may need something and if they can give away (our) money as
an incentive to get people to put non ecologically viable solar panels
on their houses then I'm guessing they to do the same to get people to
downsize?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes.

It doesn't. It may have an impact on 'social housing' though as those
'social homes' are sold off (and not replaced as we were promised)
rather than rented.

Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others.

No, true, but the discussion was more about the availability of social
housing in general and the morality of selling perfectly good (in the
most part) houses at under market value to those who happened to be in
them at the time. People who in many cases could probably have
afforded to get a mortgage and buy their own hose at the market value
and free up a house to be rented to someone who couldn't?

In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Yes, of course, but if they could afford to buy they could have done
so at 1) The std market rate or 2) bought something else from the
private sector and left a house for the purpose they were built in the
first place, to provide homes to those who couldn't afford one
otherwise.

To me it's no different to giving a 'traveler the right to live in a
fixed location (on land not sanctioned for building homes) when they
are supposed to be 'travelers'. shrug

Or giving an *economic* migrant who happens to have a family access to
housing over a Uk (or EU atm) citizen or a breeder loads of child
benefit (that rarely benefits the children) over someone who has made
a conscious decision not to have children because they couldn't afford
it.

But I'm guessing the fact that we are sympathetic to all sorts of
'causes' is why we are so attractive to those who use the system to
their advantage.

Gone are the day of pride and morality for many. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


There is only a shortage in some places.
There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.
Many are two beds and apartments.
They are depressing the market as there are so many.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:20:28 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Many are two beds and apartments.

Ok.

They are depressing the market as there are so many.

Not across the country as a whole they aren't (or I'm guessing few
would be complaining about a lack of affordable housing and the buy to
rent market wouldn't be so buoyant).

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Cheers, T i m

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 11:13:11 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

Exactly so.
The taxpayer was saved the burden of maintenance too.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 11:13:11 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

Exactly so.
The taxpayer was saved the burden of maintenance too.

But further burdened by paying to put people up in hotels and private
let places because they sold off their own housing stock at way less
than they would have ever cost to maintain.

The woman across the road bought her own council house and apart from
those things she chose to spend on it (like adding cavity wall
insulation and a conservatory) it's cost her nothing. The wet room was
added by the council for nothing and she gets her mobility car
allowance because she is disabled (but that is by the by).

Had it still been council owned (like many of those either side of it)
they would probably be housing a family of four (like the council
owned houses either side) and not just the one person.

If we aren't willing to cover half the countryside in concrete and
houses, the 'issue' is too many people vying for too few amenities.

And without a massive investment in the existing infrastructure, all
these extra homes to support these extra bodies are only going to
gridlock and pollute the country even further. ;-(

Oh well, someone has got to pay all these pensions ...

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/2016 17:45, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:20:28 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

There are plenty of jobs around here too.


There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Its a small area, why aren't they being built elsewhere?


Many are two beds and apartments.

Ok.

They are depressing the market as there are so many.

Not across the country as a whole they aren't (or I'm guessing few
would be complaining about a lack of affordable housing and the buy to
rent market wouldn't be so buoyant).

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM, however some people don't want to buy
or can't get the deposit needed (hence the government help to buy ISA,
etc.).

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/16 17:20, dennis@home wrote:
They are depressing the market as there are so many.

WE weren't talking about immigrants, or people like you dennis!

--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:29:11 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

There are plenty of jobs around here too.

Again, 'around there' doesn't reflect the country at large (the thread
wasn't just about you and your village you know). ;-)


There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Its a small area, why aren't they being built elsewhere?

Good (and the) question.

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

however some people don't want to buy
or can't get the deposit needed

I think it's more of the latter.

(hence the government help to buy ISA,
etc.).

I'm not sure how many those (will) actually help though.

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/2016 21:08, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:29:11 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

There are plenty of jobs around here too.

Again, 'around there' doesn't reflect the country at large (the thread
wasn't just about you and your village you know). ;-)


There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Its a small area, why aren't they being built elsewhere?

Good (and the) question.

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.
At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.


however some people don't want to buy
or can't get the deposit needed

I think it's more of the latter.

(hence the government help to buy ISA,
etc.).

I'm not sure how many those (will) actually help though.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.

But it's not easy to get a deposit for such a high (first) mortgage.

And if you start on the slippery rental slope you probably never will.

Cheers, T i m

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:
[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

Yes, I agree completely.

But others call it "the spare room tax".

Andy

On 29/05/2016 22:03, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

"It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it?"
what did you mean if it wasn't "its always cheaper to buy than to rent"?


At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

There is a strong chance that it will return to those sort of figures.


Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.

But it's not easy to get a deposit for such a high (first) mortgage.

The buy to let people don't have any problem though.


And if you start on the slippery rental slope you probably never will.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:12:21 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:
[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

Yes, I agree completely.

But others call it "the spare room tax".

I think there are systems within the social housing system where
people can agree to swap (or at least I've seen people talking about
it on places like Freecycle).

It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

Cheers, T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:02:50 +0100, News

In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Yes, of course, but if they could afford to buy they could have done
so at 1) The std market rate or 2) bought something else from the
private sector and left a house for the purpose they were built in the
first place, to provide homes to those who couldn't afford one
otherwise.

T i m, I'm sorry, I disagree. I have friends who bought their council
houses, mainly because there was no way they would have been able to
save a large enough deposit to buy on the open market, and could not
have afforded open market prices anyway.

Doubtless, had they not bought those houses, they would still be renting
from the LA today, so buying has not changed house availability.
--
Graeme

T i m wrote
News wrote
T i m wrote

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family
and starter homes, there could be a positive incentive put
in place (assuming there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the
purchase price is, say, 100k or more than the sale price?

I think it may need something and if they can give away (our)
money as an incentive to get people to put non ecologically
viable solar panels on their houses then I'm guessing they
to do the same to get people to downsize?

Virtually all jurisdictions do quite a bit of that already and always have
done, most obviously with council tax. rates, property taxes, land tax etc
that see the home owner paying more with higher valued propertys.

That does encourage people to downsize.

It would be no less 'fair' than giving away publicly
owned property at below market value, especially
when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council
houses thirty years ago caused a shortage of homes.

It doesn't. It may have an impact on 'social housing'
though as those 'social homes' are sold off (and not
replaced as we were promised)

Maggie never promised anything of the sort.

rather than rented.

Why is renting from private landlords
worse than renting from the council ?

Suppose those houses had not been sold.
The occupants would not suddenly vaporise,
making the houses available to others.

No, true, but the discussion was more about the availability of social
housing in general and the morality of selling perfectly good (in the
most part) houses at under market value to those who happened to
be in them at the time. People who in many cases could probably have
afforded to get a mortgage and buy their own hose at the market value
and free up a house to be rented to someone who couldn't?

There was no shortage of social housing at that time.

In other words, people who rented council houses before the
sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Yes, of course, but if they could afford to buy they could have done
so at 1) The std market rate or 2) bought something else from the
private sector and left a house for the purpose they were built in the
first place, to provide homes to those who couldn't afford one otherwise.

To me it's no different to giving a 'traveler the right to live in
a fixed location (on land not sanctioned for building homes)
when they are supposed to be 'travelers'. shrug

Or giving an *economic* migrant who happens to have a family
access to housing over a Uk (or EU atm) citizen or a breeder
loads of child benefit (that rarely benefits the children)

Of course it does, it is usually spent on feeding and clothing them etc.

over someone who has made a conscious decision
not to have children because they couldn't afford it.

Sure, but that is inevitable with any system of welfare.

While ever you provide decent state pensions for those
who end up at the end of their working life with very little
in the way of assets, that encourages plenty to just spend
what surplus income they have while working because they
can be sure that the state will provide for them when they
are no longer working.

Same with the dole. While ever the state will provide you
with benefits when you can't find a job, that discourages
people from saving so they have savings they can use in
the time between jobs too.

There is no solution to that dilemma.

Its even worse with the extreme end of welfare. We are actually
stupid enough to pay so much in child benefits and provide
social housing for those who choose not to work that you
only have to have more than just a couple of kids to end up
with a rather higher standard of living not working in social
housing that you would get working in a minimum wage job
like running a checkout in a supermarket or stacking the shelves.

And you get to do what you like with your time, veg out in
front of the TV, get ****ed or just laze around and the state
looks after the kids for most of the day too. Hardly surprising
that quite a few essentially volunteer to 'live' like that.

But I'm guessing the fact that we are sympathetic
to all sorts of 'causes' is why we are so attractive
to those who use the system to their advantage.

Gone are the day of pride and morality for many. ;-(

Gone are the days of workhouses too.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:20:28 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

Plenty of houses where there are plenty of jobs too.

There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Many are two beds and apartments.

Ok.

They are depressing the market as there are so many.

Not across the country as a whole they aren't (or I'm guessing few
would be complaining about a lack of affordable housing and the buy to
rent market wouldn't be so buoyant).

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Those that don't need to have it rented 100% to make a
decent profit.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:02:50 +0100, News

In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Yes, of course, but if they could afford to buy they could have done
so at 1) The std market rate or 2) bought something else from the
private sector and left a house for the purpose they were built in the
first place, to provide homes to those who couldn't afford one
otherwise.

T i m, I'm sorry, I disagree.

Np. It's a discussion group, it's what it's all about. ;-)

I have friends who bought their council
houses, mainly because there was no way they would have been able to
save a large enough deposit to buy on the open market, and could not
have afforded open market prices anyway.

Yes, but they did afford to buy and so took that property out of the
social housing / rental market?

Doubtless, had they not bought those houses, they would still be renting
from the LA today, so buying has not changed house availability.

No, but it means there are less *rentable / social* housing to go
round for those even less fortunate than your friends?

Don't get me wrong, I think we would all like to save money or get
things cheaper but many draw the line when there are costs to others.

Like *not* taking up the FIT theft or buying up shares of publicly
owned services just to sell them soon after to make a profit.

But hey, none of it is illegal so ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 11:13:11 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

Exactly so.
The taxpayer was saved the burden of maintenance too.

But further burdened by paying to put people up in hotels and private
let places because they sold off their own housing stock at way less
than they would have ever cost to maintain.

That isnt the result of selling off the housing stock to the existing
tenant, because that doesn't affect the number of houses required.

Its actually the result of choosing not to build enough new ones.

The woman across the road bought her own council house and
apart from those things she chose to spend on it (like adding
cavity wall insulation and a conservatory) it's cost her nothing.

Those arent nothing.

The wet room was added by the council for nothing and she gets her
mobility car allowance because she is disabled (but that is by the by).

That stuff is available to those who chose to buy their
house on the open market instead of from the council and
to those who choose to rent from a normal landlord too.

Had it still been council owned (like many of those either side
of it) they would probably be housing a family of four (like the
council owned houses either side) and not just the one person.

Unlikely. If she had not chosen to buy it from the council it
is much more likely that she would still be renting it from the
council with just one person in it and paying the bedroom tax.

And even if she had demanded that the council provided her
with a one bedroom council house with a wet room and some
place for her mobility car and had got that, it still wouldn't have
made much difference to the lack of houses suitable for a family
of four, because there just arent all that many in her situation.

If we aren't willing to cover half the countryside in concrete and houses,

That's a wild exaggeration. Nothing like that is needed
to ensure that there is no need for the council to pay
the rent of privately owned houses or hotels for those
they don't have enough social housing for.

the 'issue' is too many people vying for too few amenities.

And the fix for that is to build more social housing if you
believe that that is the appropriate way to house them.

And without a massive investment in the existing infrastructure,
all these extra homes to support these extra bodies are only
going to gridlock and pollute the country even further. ;-(

Not when done properly with decent public transport.

Oh well, someone has got to pay all these pensions ...

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:31:22 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 22:03, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

"It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it?"
what did you mean if it wasn't "its always cheaper to buy than to rent"?

In the long run. Renting something you will never own.


At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

There is a strong chance that it will return to those sort of figures.

But hasn't atm.


Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.

But it's not easy to get a deposit for such a high (first) mortgage.

The buy to let people don't have any problem though.

Because they often have a house they can put up as collateral.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:29:11 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

There is only a shortage in some places.

Well, sure, plenty of houses where there aren't any jobs etc.

There are plenty of jobs around here too.

Again, 'around there' doesn't reflect the country at large (the thread
wasn't just about you and your village you know). ;-)


There are hundreds of new homes being built around here.

When the need is for hundreds of thousands.

Its a small area, why aren't they being built elsewhere?

Good (and the) question.

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it?

Nope. I have in fact just bought one for someone else on Saturday
and the place is currently being rented out for $220 a week, and the
mortgage repayments will be $1100 a month with a 20% deposit
and there are council rates of $1500 and water and sewerage rates
on top of that for $900 and insurance on top of that too.

And that is with a rather better than average price for that house.

When I was considering buying this place (on my own) and getting
cold feet a mate said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house
ownership thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand
...".
I kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

however some people don't want to buy
or can't get the deposit needed

I think it's more of the latter.

Not always, some just decide that renting gives them
a lot more flexibility and that can be true particularly
for those who choose to change jobs quite a bit.

(hence the government help to buy ISA, etc.).

I'm not sure how many those (will) actually help though.

Ours do with very substantial grants for first home buyers
particularly and other concessions like not having to pay
the stamp duty on the transaction which can amount to
tens of thousands.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.

But it's not easy to get a deposit for such a high (first) mortgage.

And if you start on the slippery rental slope you probably never will.

The two that I just bought that house for have always saved at
a hell of a rate and were renting most of that time and still are.
They don't plan to move into that house I just bought for a while.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/05/2016 22:03, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

"It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it?"
what did you mean if it wasn't "its always cheaper to buy than to rent"?


At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

There is a strong chance that it will return to those sort of figures.

We'll see...

Its the low rates that are keeping buy to let going, its cheap to get a
mortgage and let it.

But it's not easy to get a deposit for such a high (first) mortgage.

The buy to let people don't have any problem though.

And if you start on the slippery rental slope you probably never will.

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 18:50:15 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 11:13:11 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

Exactly so.
The taxpayer was saved the burden of maintenance too.

But further burdened by paying to put people up in hotels and private
let places because they sold off their own housing stock at way less
than they would have ever cost to maintain.

The woman across the road bought her own council house and apart from
those things she chose to spend on it (like adding cavity wall
insulation and a conservatory) it's cost her nothing. The wet room was
added by the council for nothing and she gets her mobility car
allowance because she is disabled (but that is by the by).

Had it still been council owned (like many of those either side of it)
they would probably be housing a family of four (like the council
owned houses either side) and not just the one person.

If we aren't willing to cover half the countryside in concrete and
houses, the 'issue' is too many people vying for too few amenities.

And without a massive investment in the existing infrastructure, all
these extra homes to support these extra bodies are only going to
gridlock and pollute the country even further. ;-(

Oh well, someone has got to pay all these pensions ...

Cheers, T i m

All of which is why they should be chucked out when they can afford to buy or rent in the real market.
If they have cars, they can afford to buy a house.

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 18:50:15 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:53:17 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 11:13:11 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been
sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses
available to others. In other words, people who rented council houses
before the sale would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

--
Graeme

Exactly so.
The taxpayer was saved the burden of maintenance too.

But further burdened by paying to put people up in hotels and private
let places because they sold off their own housing stock at way less
than they would have ever cost to maintain.

The woman across the road bought her own council house and apart from
those things she chose to spend on it (like adding cavity wall
insulation and a conservatory) it's cost her nothing. The wet room was
added by the council for nothing and she gets her mobility car
allowance because she is disabled (but that is by the by).

Had it still been council owned (like many of those either side of it)
they would probably be housing a family of four (like the council
owned houses either side) and not just the one person.

If we aren't willing to cover half the countryside in concrete and
houses, the 'issue' is too many people vying for too few amenities.

And without a massive investment in the existing infrastructure, all
these extra homes to support these extra bodies are only going to
gridlock and pollute the country even further. ;-(

Oh well, someone has got to pay all these pensions ...

Cheers, T i m

BTW, how many council houses are under occupied?

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 22:31:25 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/05/2016 22:03, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:36:17 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

Who would buy a house to rent if it wasn't pretty likely it was going
to be rented 100%?

Its cheaper to buy than rent ATM,

It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it? When I was
considering buying this place (on my own) and getting cold feet a mate
said: 'Buy it ... and if you don't like the whole house ownership
thing, sell it and you will probably still *make* a few grand ...". I
kept it and it was paid for when I was 40. It looks like you have to
be 40 before you can think about buying a house these days. ;-(

No it hasn't always been cheaper.

I didn't say it had.

"It's always cheaper to buy than to rent isn't it?"
what did you mean if it wasn't "its always cheaper to buy than to rent"?


At one time mortgage rates were in double figures for most of the time.
It makes a hell of a difference to the monthly outgoings.
At one point the rate hit about 15% and there aren't many rents that
would have been as expensive.
Its only the last decade or two where rates have been very low.

Again, we are talking about the situation *today*, not two+ decade
ago. ;-(

There is a strong chance that it will return to those sort of figures.

No chance.
If it did, the government couldn't service the national debt.

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News

Doubtless, had they not bought those houses, they would still be renting
from the LA today, so buying has not changed house availability.

No, but it means there are less *rentable / social* housing to go
round for those even less fortunate than your friends?

Well yes - and no :-) As I said earlier, if friends had not bought
their council house, they would still be renting, so no change. One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

I can see both sides of the council house arguement. I remember, as a
youngster, the parents of friends in council houses always seemed to be
better off than my parents, who bought a house. Those in council houses
seemed to have newer cars, BBC2 before we did, colour TVs before we did.

A particular friend, one of four boys, lived in a large council house
with his brothers and parents. By the time we were mid/late teens, all
four boys and father were working, all four boys at home, and they were
awash with cash. Should they have been forced out of their council
house?
--
Graeme

On 29-May-16 8:01 AM, harry wrote:
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

How do you identify Council houses? At one time it was simple - all
those in a particular street were Council built and owned. These days,
most of those houses are likely to be privately owned and the Council
tenants are far more likely to be living in property rented by the
Council from the private sector.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 30/05/2016 08:38, News wrote:


A particular friend, one of four boys, lived in a large council house
with his brothers and parents. By the time we were mid/late teens, all
four boys and father were working, all four boys at home, and they were
awash with cash. Should they have been forced out of their council house?

That was the idea behind councils charging rents that were not
subsidised. It meant people with money might buy or at least paid more
into the system than those that couldn't afford it and got housing benefit.
The fact that the system has been abused hasn't helped.