And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..
- Thread starter Scam
- Start date
That housing benefit costs more than the previous Labour manifesto's housebuilding pledge
Total development cost per new build is estimated at around £320k, obviously that's then an income producing asset for the taxpayer rather than money that's 'spent'
In reality, this is the disgusting thing, and is absolutely why landlords should be getting taxed more.
It's easy to say build more council houses, but councils don't have the funds to build council houses en-masse. That £22bn should be ringfenced back into providing further/better social housing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,378
- Location
- Derbyshire
Isn't it easier to just tell people it isn't OK to have kids when they haven't got the financial means to properly care for them? I don't see why the state should keep funding this cycle.
Social housing is supposed to be hard to get. It acts as a deterrent.
Who's talking about kids?
Also, as mentioned above, social housing can act as a pressure release valve on rising rental costs as a proportion of incomes.
In the last 20 years, average rents in England have risen from 28.7% of total income, to 45.5%
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
You should be able to use housing benefit to pay your mortgage if you choose. That's the problem here. Then the money wouldnt go to landlords.
Does who?
I mean if you're asking anyone, my opinion is that abolishing all inheritance is pushing too far against a basic element of human (/animal) nature. The thing that should be solved instead is the propensity for intergenerational wealth transfers to snowball, maybe after 2-3 generations.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,101
Ha, great idea I'll buy a 5 bedroom house and get the council to pay the mortgage, I'm sure that'll work. Afterall I'm worth it right?
At least the benefit would be benefiting you, rather than you renting that 5 bedroom house and the council effectively paying your landlords mortgage, which is currently how it works
Of course the real solution is that housing benefit shouldn't be paying off the mortgages of any private individuals but that horse bolted years ago.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
Obviously housing benefit should be capped at £300 a month or something.
See, I would actually agree to that, with the provision that the property then becomes shared ownership with the DWP (the % would depend on the amount of housing benefit paid etc.)
e.g. if you still owed 50% of the value and the housing benefit paid for 50% of your mortgage, the DWP's share would be 25%.
If the property is sold, then that 25% equity would need to be repaid to the DWP.
You're still favouring landlords in that case - renters' housing benefit is going directly on their mortgages too
Save up for your kids to buy their first home, so they don't experience the hardship of saving a deposit in 15-20 years.
We aren't that patient anymore, to save for say 5 years after getting into a career is an annoyance, so people decide oh let's rent a flat or house and while your enjoying it your paying someone else's mortgage. Or they decide to buy a car instead.
The sooner people get onto the property market the better.
We aren't that patient anymore, to save for say 5 years after getting into a career is an annoyance, so people decide oh let's rent a flat or house and while your enjoying it your paying someone else's mortgage. Or they decide to buy a car instead.
The sooner people get onto the property market the better.
That's what happens at the moment anyway - the only difference being in my case the DWP gets a return (eventually) rather than the homeowner who loses their job being forced to sell up and rent, and their housing benefit payments being "lost" to their landlord
I'm just gonna leave this here
Yea, that is quite a striking graphic.
And before people come back with "but interest rates" they weren't as bad as in the 80's, still fairly high in 90/91 but dropped significantly in 92 and then stayed pretty static (annually) until the financial crash.
https://www.ngiresidential.co.uk/rise-and-fall-historical-interest-rates-in-the-uk-1979-2019/
Even assuming mortgage rates exactly even out on the total repayment, a 10% deposit now is significantly higher, hence the whole 'bank of mum and dad' thing
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
Some are saying covid will actually inflate house prices due to severely constrained supply
'Wait for a crash' is just another way of saying 'time the market', which sounds good in practice but rarely works. If you were being serious that is
Covid-19 may send up house prices in areas where rich city dwellers want to move to during the pandemic, but other areas will be unaffected. Poor areas will get poorer due to increasing unemployment which will eventually lead to lower house prices there.
Timing the market is not that hard. I sold my previous house in mid 2007 and bought my current one in late 2009 (after house prices had dropped 20% in this area). Getting a mortgage to buy during a recession can be a problem though. Also, the boomers pulled the HMO ladder up after them. In many areas you now need planning permission to set up a HMO and the local NIMBYs hate students and poor people so that is usually impossible.