Crackdown on 'rich' council house tenants

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, you keep banging on about the market but who in their right mind would use our current housing bubble as a guide to anything, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply, estate agents literally making rents up as they go along in an attempt to screw a few more quid out of people and the biggest subsidy of all that people should be moaning about that actually costs us all real money is the land lord subsidy of housing benefit.

Beside which i don't even think this is new policy, not with housing associations anyway, my pal's tenancy is reviewed every five years and one of the things they look at is how much he earns. Extending it to council housing is quite logical and I'll have to check this but iirc the earning limit they have set is actually higher than his housing association set. Also imo the reason people like housing association and council property isn't because there a bit cheaper, it's because the tenancy is more secure, you aren't beholden to the whim of a landlord.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------



Exactly the cost of building them was subsidised and in most cases has been repaid many times over. The grants were actually scrapped for a time, hence why some housing doesn't have a right to buy attached

How can you say it's in the past, when the subsidies/grants are still in place to this very day. Something built last century, decade, year, or week has been subsidised.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply

It makes no sense for btl investors to buy and not rent out the property. We borrow the money that we use to buy the property so we have to pay interest on that money. Why on earth do you think that we don't rent the property out? We are paying out money for the privilege of owning it. We want to recoup our outgoings. Why would you think that we don't rent the property out? What planet are you living on?

estate agents literally making rents up as they go along in an attempt to screw a few more quid out of people

Estate agents don't let properties. You really don't have a clue. Please have a read of this. It's a very good read

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It makes no sense for btl investors to buy and not rent out the property. We borrow the money that we use to buy the property so we have to pay interest on that money. Why on earth do you think that we don't rent the property out? We are paying out money for the privilege of owning it. We want to recoup our outgoings. Why would you think that we don't rent the property out? What planet are you living on? Estate agents don't let properties. You really don't have a clue. Please have a read of this. It's a very good read

What's this we, you're not one of them, you're not in their league, you're not even playing the same game as them. why don't you have a look at the link below and open your eyes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ors-uk-housing

---------- Post added at 04:03 ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

How can you say it's in the past, when the subsidies/grants are still in place to this very day. Something built last century, decade, year, or week has been subsidised.

Because the vast, vast majority of social houses built have had their subsidies paid back over and over.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, you keep banging on about the market but who in their right mind would use our current housing bubble as a guide to anything, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply, estate agents literally making rents up as they go along in an attempt to screw a few more quid out of people and the biggest subsidy of all that people should be moaning about that actually costs us all real money is the land lord subsidy of housing benefit.

Beside which i don't even think this is new policy, not with housing associations anyway, my pal's tenancy is reviewed every five years and one of the things they look at is how much he earns. Extending it to council housing is quite logical and I'll have to check this but iirc the earning limit they have set is actually higher than his housing association set. Also imo the reason people like housing association and council property isn't because there a bit cheaper, it's because the tenancy is more secure, you aren't beholden to the whim of a landlord.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------



Exactly the cost of building them was subsidised and in most cases has been repaid many times over. The grants were actually scrapped for a time, hence why some housing doesn't have a right to buy attached

and there was i thinking that it was too many holding out the begging bowl for nanny state handouts but it seems that it was wanting a fair return on investment that was the problem ,maybe we should just give them the house for free along with all the other state handouts .

[peanut]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

and there was i thinking that it was too many holding out the begging bowl for nanny state handouts but it seems that it was wanting a fair return on investment that was the problem ,maybe we should just give them the house for free along with all the other state handouts .

Do you begrudge those in council houses or housing association or something? You really are showing yourself up here.

The rents are cheaper in social housing, but it doesn't mean it's subsidised, just market rates are higher because they are privately run. I don't see what the problem is here.

What kind of idiot would give up their social housing even though they could afford privately owned rented accommodation, just because of the ethics. It's the terms and agreements that come with social housing that offers the security that people need. Also for some that could afford to rent private probably wouldn't be able to get a mortgage or do not want to go down that road for giving up the security they have. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[techguyone]

I've been saying that all along, some real colours coming out in this thread.

[DJSADERS]

I live in a council house in the area that i grew up in, i could not possibly afford to live anywhere around here on the private market as the rents are double what i pay now before bills.

As for buying this is out of the option as getting the deposit together with kids is impossible!

With the tories once again only helping the rich the hard working people like myself are screwed over, as if i get effected by this its my kids that would suffer the most.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by DJSADERS

I live in a council house in the area that i grew up in, i could not possibly afford to live anywhere around here on the private market as the rents are double what i pay now before bills.

As for buying this is out of the option as getting the deposit together with kids is impossible!

With the tories once again only helping the rich the hard working people like myself are screwed over, as if i get effected by this its my kids that would suffer the most.

Makes you wonder why so many clearly not rich people voted for them then...

[denphone]

They voted for them because they were seen as the best of a bad bunch.....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

They voted for them because they were seen as the best of a bad bunch.....

Why would they be the best of a bad bunch to anyone who believes they only look after the rich?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Osem

Why would they be the best of a bad bunch to anyone who believes they only look after the rich?

l never said they looked after the rich only but they were seen as the safest and best option by many due to a variety of different reasons and factors.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

l never said they looked after the rich only but they were seen as the safest and best option by many due to a variety of different reasons and factors.

I know you didn't. The poster I initially replied to did and I then asked the question which you answered.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What's this we, you're not one of them, you're not in their league, you're not even playing the same game as them. why don't you have a look at the link below and open your eyes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ors-uk-housing

Ah, your talking about arabs and oligarchs there. Different kettle of fish but surely that accounts for a tiny percentage of investment properties in this country?
btw, I'm obviously not in that league but my properties have passed the 1.5 million mark by a fair way, and I'm doing my best to make them all earn their keep

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Ah, your talking about arabs and oligarchs there. Different kettle of fish but surely that accounts for a tiny percentage of investment properties in this country?
btw, I'm obviously not in that league but my properties have passed the 1.5 million mark by a fair way, and I'm doing my best to make them all earn their keep

What, you mean you don't derive huge satisfaction from keeping them empty and playing your role in ensuring that even more of the deserving poor have nowhere to live?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by peanut

Do you begrudge those in council houses or housing association or something? You really are showing yourself up here.

The rents are cheaper in social housing, but it doesn't mean it's subsidised, just market rates are higher because they are privately run. I don't see what the problem is here.

What kind of idiot would give up their social housing even though they could afford privately owned rented accommodation, just because of the ethics. It's the terms and agreements that come with social housing that offers the security that people need. Also for some that could afford to rent private probably wouldn't be able to get a mortgage or do not want to go down that road for giving up the security they have. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

you must forgive me for not responding quickly but i have been out working earning the money to pay my mortgage and taxes etc [un subsidised by nanny ] - i do not begrudge poor families having social housing i begrudge the well off having it at the expense of the poor - you ask what kind of idiot gives up cheap subsidised social housing ........ well that's the very attitude that is the root cause of the problem people who don't need state handouts grabbing every thing they can get because they think its their god given right to live off the backs of others instead of doing the unthinkable and fending for themselves .