Lonsdale73
Established Member
And he wasn't paying taxes on his triple/quadruple earnings?
House Buying - Advice?
- Thread starter BearTricks
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
We will need to build an awful lot of houses if bumbling Borris opens up the doors for people from war torn regions, we are so willing to help everyone else but not our own. You should get your own house in order before sorting out anyone elses.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I supported the sale of council housing in the belief that owner occupiers take more care of the property and the local environment. It relieves the taxpayer of subsidies required for council and social housing.
But the key to ensuring people have somewhere to live rests not on whether it is publically or privately constructed, nor whether it is rented or owned, but only that there is a sufficient quantity, of the right quality, in the right place, at the right (fair?) price.
Councils seem to attach importance to the quality of construction as they are likely to be responsible for the property for many decades to come.
By contrast the private sector seem content if the building lasts long enough not to give rise to an expensive claim - NHBC is apparently 2 years for defects and 10 years for structure.
We do not need more council housing, but improved building standards and enforcement. Councils could support this by (a) giving planning permission only for high quality homes, and (b) refusing occupation of houses which do not meet these standards. Pigs might fly as well!
But the key to ensuring people have somewhere to live rests not on whether it is publically or privately constructed, nor whether it is rented or owned, but only that there is a sufficient quantity, of the right quality, in the right place, at the right (fair?) price.
Councils seem to attach importance to the quality of construction as they are likely to be responsible for the property for many decades to come.
By contrast the private sector seem content if the building lasts long enough not to give rise to an expensive claim - NHBC is apparently 2 years for defects and 10 years for structure.
We do not need more council housing, but improved building standards and enforcement. Councils could support this by (a) giving planning permission only for high quality homes, and (b) refusing occupation of houses which do not meet these standards. Pigs might fly as well!
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Of course he was. He should be subsidising other people's housing not his own.
Lonsdale73
Established Member
Okay, someone mentioned a salary a £30k salary so for aument's sake let's say that back then that's what you were earning. Over the course of a year, you would have taken home around £24, 000. Being on triple your salary, his take home would have been £60, 000 so he will have paid more in tax and NIC than you would have earned in total in the same period. Unless he hoarded every last penny under his mattress, it's probable that he spent more than you did on various goods, helping comapnies to make money that kept staff in jobs with a regular income. Thus, he was 'subsidising' the housing of others to a far greater extent than you were doing. If he really was on four times as much as you, then each year his contribution is nearly double your annual income and EIGHT TIMES your contribution.
Ignoring for a moment that renting isn't always necessarily cheaper than a mortgage (I no longer have one of those but if I was to rent my house out tomorrow it would bring a return some 25% higher than the mortgage to buy it would cost), after 25 years, you've paid yours off, it's probably worth several times what you paid for it and from now on all your income is all yours. Maybe one day you will leave it to your kids to squabble over or think "Sod them, I'm off on a round the world cruise that I'm never coming back from." Meanwhile, Mr Renter is still paying his rent on a property that he might well think of as home but will never be his, never be something he can pass on except to the next custodian who these days has to rent at over the odds because some banker tells them that they can't afford a mortgage.
Flipside of your arguement is that for all those years, for all the money he paid into the system, he'll receive the same state pension as you so it could be said that he is subsidisng your dotage.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
You get a job to earn money to pay rent or buy a house. You swap many, many hours of your life for bits of paper, which are then swapped for a mortgage or rent. (It's ironic that the bits of paper are actually someone else's debt, created by a bank out of thin air, which you slave to earn, and then give back to the bank as your mortgage payment, thereby destroying said debt note).
Why not use the hours of your life to build your own house? Use low cost high labour techniques as they did back in the dark ages - cob, stone, straw bale, etc. Modern techniques such as clay slip straw are also useful, and cheap/virtually free. Work less (or not at all) for other people, but invest your hours in yourself.
Working for someone else means the employer take the risk instead of you, but in exchange for that security you give up about a third of your life. Half if you don't count sleeping as being "your" time. Seize the day, take the risk yourself. Use your own life for your own benefit.
Why not use the hours of your life to build your own house? Use low cost high labour techniques as they did back in the dark ages - cob, stone, straw bale, etc. Modern techniques such as clay slip straw are also useful, and cheap/virtually free. Work less (or not at all) for other people, but invest your hours in yourself.
Working for someone else means the employer take the risk instead of you, but in exchange for that security you give up about a third of your life. Half if you don't count sleeping as being "your" time. Seize the day, take the risk yourself. Use your own life for your own benefit.
If only the land was available.
Do you still get VAT back on new builds?
No, we definitely need affordable housing.
Higher quality will just mean the developers pass on the higher prices.
Councils shouldn't need to buy the land and are not building for profit so should be able to build quality homes for far less than a developer.
Maybe councils should do more to provide land for 'affordable' self-build?
Whilst I love the countryside I think industrial scale farming has ruined a lot of it. I'd allow some building on green belt land.
Homes left empty for a long time (TBD) should be taxed or repossessed.
Blimey my inner left wing is coming to the surface!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Tell that to a homeless person.
Simple fact of life - if you sell off, or stop public services it will save money, BUT somewhere down the line people who need the services will suffer the consequences.
Selling off council houses could have worked if done intelligently - money reinvested in housing for starters, prohibition on buy to let, 2nd homes, speculation etc. so that the original objective was maintained i.e to provide housing where needed.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes it's been a disaster. Added hugely to the pressure on house prices for obvious reasons; creating a shortage but allowing profiteering. Many ex council houses are now rented with rents wildly above what they would have needed to be under council management. A big giveaway.Prohibition on buy to let ?
Get real Jacob
I would agree that governmental / council investment in social housing
has been catastrophic and absolutely shameful.
However, I would consider the private property market to be quite
separate from that.
has been catastrophic and absolutely shameful.
However, I would consider the private property market to be quite
separate from that.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It isn't though.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Often one of the adults is not consenting.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Well yes, nothing has changed!
If anything, it's got worse.
No problem with profit making in the private rental market. Let market forces do their thing.
It doesn't really have a place in public sector housing though.
God knows how much public money is spent on temporary hotel accommodation and the leasing of privately owned properties.
Maybe I'm being naive but Councils should be as self sufficient as possible and as a result provide more jobs for the local population.
My council recently took rubbish and recycling back in house. The service has improved.
