Right to Buy Council property, wrong or right?

[fake 10]

But why should the tax payer have to subsidise them?

 

They don't, or rather they haven't for many decades.

 

The rents charged over the years have paid for the buildings many times over and no new homes have been built from that money so no one is subsidising them. Any RTB money goes to the governments central pot and not returned to the local authority. Moneys from the RTB forms part of the main government budget so taxpayers end up (in theory) gaining from that extra government income. The reason why government past and present have liked the RTB.

 

Just to add, creating a demand for homes also keeps the private house prices high, thus creating more profit for the brokers and more debt for the buyers.

Edited June 21, 2013 by fake

[WeX 10]

They don't, or rather they haven't for many decades.

 

The rents charged over the years have paid for the buildings many times over and no new homes have been built from that money so no one is subsidising them. Any RTB money goes to the governments central pot and not returned to the local authority. Moneys from the RTB forms part of the main government budget so taxpayers end up (in theory) gaining from that extra government income. The reason why government past and present have liked the RTB.

 

Just to add, creating a demand for homes also keeps the private house prices high, thus creating more profit for the brokers and more debt for the buyers.

 

Do you know the cost paid by councils to build social housing?

Do you know how long before a tenant can buy their council house?

Do you know the discount they are offered off of the value of the house?

Do you know the amount the tenant pays to purchase the house from the council?

Do you know the sale price of the house when it enteres the market?

 

If you can answer the above, and provide proof, you are correct, but if you cannot, I'm not convinced by your argument.

 

At the highest rate of rent, a house would have to be rented out by the council for more than 50 years before the rent would exceed the value of the house at sale price.

 

Plus money used to build and maintain social housing does nto go to the population, but rather goes to one family for the duration of the house's life within the councils portfolio. This money is a sizeable investment and then to sell the house at a loss, means a loss to the public purse in real terms.

 

If the council owned a sizeable piece of land in the centre of sheffield and rented it out to a private company for a number of years. If, once they had recouped the cost of the land they sold it to the company at 1/3rd its value (which is approx the highest discount a council tenant can enjoy), the local population would be unhappy with the council for good reason. Social housing is no different, the council tax paying public is taking the risk with the investment while the tenant is taking all the rewards by purchasing the property at a discount and then being able to sell it at an inflated profit a few years later.

 

this is why in my opinion social housing should not be sold off to tenants, and should be kept for people who really needed it, rather than for those who think their government owes them a roof over their heads.

Edited June 21, 2013 by WeX

[fake 10]

Do you know the cost paid by councils to build social housing?

 

Not exactly as the costs are from around 50 years or so years ago so it is difficult to quantify. But I do have details of some of the costs to build the high rise flats, maisonettes and Vic Hallams in Norfolk Park that were subsequently demolished as I was part of that management board.

 

Do you know how long before a tenant can buy their council house?

 

Yes, although that has changed and been updated.

 

Do you know the discount they are offered off of the value of the house?

 

Yes, But again that has changed and details are available on the Govt. web site under the RTB.

 

 

Do you know the amount the tenant pays to purchase the house from the council?

 

Which tenant?

 

Do you know the sale price of the house when it enteres the market?

 

That depends on the current value. For instance if I was to buy my flat it would be valued at around £75,000.

 

If you can answer the above, and provide proof, you are correct, but if you cannot, I'm not convinced by your argument.

 

At the highest rate of rent, a house would have to be rented out by the council for more than 50 years before the rent would exceed the value of the house at sale price.

 

Plus money used to build and maintain social housing does nto go to the population, but rather goes to one family for the duration of the house's life within the councils portfolio. This money is a sizeable investment and then to sell the house at a loss, means a loss to the public purse in real terms.

 

If the council owned a sizeable piece of land in the centre of sheffield and rented it out to a private company for a number of years. If, once they had recouped the cost of the land they sold it to the company at 1/3rd its value (which is approx the highest discount a council tenant can enjoy), the local population would be unhappy with the council for good reason. Social housing is no different, the council tax paying public is taking the risk with the investment while the tenant is taking all the rewards by purchasing the property at a discount and then being able to sell it at an inflated profit a few years later.

 

this is why in my opinion social housing should not be sold off to tenants, and should be kept for people who really needed it, rather than for those who think their government owes them a roof over their heads.

 

BTW I agree that social housing should not be sold off, and would say that in fact building them needs to be increased.

Edited June 21, 2013 by fake

[kidley 48]

I would suggest that the sale of council housers have a clause in the contract saying that whoever buys the property has to live in it till they sell it again and not be allowed to rent it out. for this reason.

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&oq=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&gs_l=hp.12...1603.21586.0.24976.36.36.0.0.0.0.277.3155.32j3j1.36.0.ernk_timediscountb..0.0...1.1.17.psy-ab.VJTFHhcM4M4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48293060,d.d2k&fp=7ea3df6d65fe6bad&biw=1024&bih=563

[fake 10]

I would suggest that the sale of council housers have a clause in the contract saying that whoever buys the property has to live in it till they sell it again and not be allowed to rent it out. for this reason.

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&oq=ministers+who+own+ex+council+housers&gs_l=hp.12...1603.21586.0.24976.36.36.0.0.0.0.277.3155.32j3j1.36.0.ernk_timediscountb..0.0...1.1.17.psy-ab.VJTFHhcM4M4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48293060,d.d2k&fp=7ea3df6d65fe6bad&biw=1024&bih=563

 

Don't believe all that is published, especially about the Thatcher era.

 

The simple fact is that the majority of the people that have bought council properties still live in them. Although now there may be a shortage of council housing all that means is that there is a shortage of stock. Many people that have bought them still live in them so have no effect on the housing demand, the only difference is that the now own them and are classed as private. A person selling a RTB will still have to live somewhere.

[Rayo 10]

Why would you choose an interest only mortgage if you want to build equity in a property?

 

I have NEVER tried to pay-off a mortgage because I never had enough money after raising a family. Inflation always took care of the equity. If I never moved from my first house I would still owe the full amount 4,525 pounds with I could now pay with my Barclaycard!!!

 

With regard to the sale council houses, I understand they do not require a deposit and give you a massive discount.

 

Margret Thatcher's idea was very good for the poor. It was a pity that the coucils did not re-invest the billions in new-build.

[Agent Orange 11]

I have NEVER tried to pay-off a mortgage because I never had enough money after raising a family. Inflation always took care of the equity. If I never moved from my first house I would still owe the full amount 4,525 pounds with I could now pay with my Barclaycard!!!

 

With regard to the sale council houses, I understand they do not require a deposit and give you a massive discount.

 

Margret Thatcher's idea was very good for the poor. It was a pity that the coucils did not re-invest the billions in new-build.

 

I don't believe councils do not offer huge discounts any longer and besides, you would still require a mortgage, which would still require some sort of deposit.

[Ms Macbeth 76]

I don't believe councils do not offer huge discounts any longer and besides, you would still require a mortgage, which would still require some sort of deposit.

 

Discounts have actually been increased under this government.

 

'The main changes to Right to Buy that took effect from 2 April 2012 were:

the maximum discount that buyers can get on the market value of their home was increased to £75,000 (from 25 March 2013, this increased further to £100,000 in London boroughs)' https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-people-to-buy-a-home/supporting-pages/right-to-buy