Soldato
More fuel to house prices... They should just be building these new houses themselves, directly, instead of this convoluted proposal
Poll: General election voting poll round 3
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
A 150k house with a 70% discount, and earning 25k-30k a year? Probably quite easy I should think.
Err, No it really isn't, and Thatchers policy in the 80's has been criticised by both sides of the political spectrum for the massive cluster **** it has caused decades down the road.
For starters it keeps getting mentioned that people in social housing aren't necessarily 'poor' anyway, so if they want to buy a house, just buy from the market like anyone else.
They are getting the benefit from cheap subsidised housing while living there, making it easier to save a deposit for the aformentioned 'normal' housing market, so why should they get the massive double whammy of up to 70% discount off a house - paid for out of tax payers money!
And you can't look at it in isolation. Since they don't rebuild enough social housing to cover the loss from the sales, it leaves us in a worse position overall.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
Forcing a private landlord to sell their property at a 70% discount doesnt sound very Conservative to me.
Most HA construct with funds from private investors, good luck not getting the crap sued out of you government.
Most HA construct with funds from private investors, good luck not getting the crap sued out of you government.
Well, obviously. I was making the point it has attracted criticism from all sides so its not just a partisan objection.
Why would they care if the government is just going to pay them the difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
Well thats going to cost quite a bit then, isnt it.
What are you talking about private landlords for?
As I understand it is people in homes in housing association houses, not in private rented houses.
The problem is we need regulation (and on a big scale) in the lower end/new home market, we need to make LOTS of homes for people that are affordable and of decent quality. Problem is people in towns (like my town) don't wont houses to be built as they want it to remain a nice small town, problem is wher edo you build then?
From Scorzas OP, Radio 4 article said maybe between 5 - 20 Billion. No one would be able to put an accurate figure on it, so let's just say.....'lots'
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
Housing associations are charities. They are not part of local council or government. They raise funds to build and maintain homes from private investors. Ergo, they are private landlords. Albeit ones that provide cheap housing to people who need it.
I'm sure Osbourne looked at the figures and thought it a fair price for the country to pay for him to buy votes, from what I've read in this thread he's used our money to buy at least one already.
Because they use the future rent from already existent stock to support funding for borrowing to build. While they rent the houses out they still own the capital value of the house and make money from the rent, only potentially getting a few years of rent before having to sell the asset will probably make it harder and more expensive for them to borrow more money.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970
Does anyone think extending the right to buy to Housing Association tenants as per the latest Conservative election pledge, is a good idea? I found out thanks to Radio 4 this morning that Housing Associations are private not-for-profit organisations so the government will have to compensate them for the discount given to buyers. I see from the link above Labour have said this will cost the taxpayer £4.5bn, the lady on R4 representing HAs said it would cost between £5.8bn and £20bnShe also pointed out that it didn't really make sense to give away taxpayers money to some of the most securely housed people in the country when we have so many private renters who are struggling to save for a deposit and in an increasing number of cases struggling to just pay the rent.
I heard this on R4 this morning.
I had to double check that it wasn't an Aprils Fools.
Last edited:
Caporegime
It actually reeks of something only the Tories would and did do
I realise that, a crap policy is something i'd usually associate with Labour.
Soldato
Osbourne could not be more of a short sighted imbecile if he tried, forcing the housing associations to sell off their housing stock is so breath takingly retarded, it's almost criminal.
Soldato
They are clearly desperate, hoping a hefty house discount to a number of the electorate will buy them enough votes regardless as to if it will bankrupt the nation.
Yet another unfunded pledge (along with the £8b for the NHS).
Yet another unfunded pledge (along with the £8b for the NHS).
He's talking about me I think. Platypus doesn't like me very much, probably for a good reason
And what reason might that be, do you think?
They take out a mortgage, and people with mortgages can't strike. That's the logic thatcher was running on when she first introduced this scheme, so it should tell you what kind of future the Tories think their headed for if they are bringing it back...
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Not sure if trolling, or really doesn't understand logic.
I ask again, why do you get to ignore deaths but include emigration to lower the immigration figure? You are picking which figures suit your argument and it reminds me of the logic behind the "missing dollar" riddle where plus and minus figures are deliberately interchanged to get a weird result.
Let's break this down to the bare essentials. There are 4 things which affect the population number...
1. Births (+)
2. Deaths (-)
3. Immigration (+)
4. Emigration (-)
So if you want to know what the gross increase is then you must only use the positive figures, you CANNOT include any of the negatives which you are doing by using "net migration" given that is the sum of Immigration minus Emigration. We can look at this for 2013 which was
Births = 698,512
Immigrants = 526,000
So 1,224,512 "new people", of which immigrants made up 43%.
If you want to see net population change then you include all the figures equally, so for 2013...
Births = 698,512
Deaths = 506,790
Immigrants = 526,000
Emmigrants = 314,000
So...
Natural Causes (Births minus Deaths) = 191,722
Migration (Immigration minus Emigration) = 212,000
Total net population increase is 403,722 of which 53% is attributed to migration.
If you still can't understand why you must be consistent with how you use plus and minus figures, then lets look at this question another way. Instead of asking how much immigration contributes to population, turn it around and ask what would happen if we closed all borders so no one could get in or out of the country (No, I'm not advocating this as policy but merely trying to prove a mathematical point).
So with no one coming in or leaving the country in 2013 we only have births and deaths which as we see above means a net increase of 191,722 people. However the borders weren't closed and in fact net population rose to 403,772, a difference of 212,050 more people whose presence here is solely due to migration.
If I wanted to "skew" the numbers (as you say) I could therefore claim that migration has more doubled the amount of population increase than natural causes. Only that is statistically accurate so I'm not skewing anything other than the narrative.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
You've just confirmed what I said. The issue was not RtB but the lack of new social housing. Rather than criticise a scheme which allows poor working class people to get a new house, your criticism should be about the lack of new social housing.
- Status