That's more clear and I agree completely.
Social housing should be based on non-profit and a whole lot more of
it is needed than is being done at present.
It's the current ideology of privatising everything, where it goes wrong.
House Buying - Advice?
- Thread starter BearTricks
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
That's more clear and I agree completely.
Social housing should be based on non-profit and a whole lot more of
it is needed than is being done at present.
It's the current ideology of privatising everything, where it goes wrong.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
In the real world we are all public sector and all housing is "social" housing.
Of course Comrade
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The old conditioned reflex kicking in!Of course Comrade
Weird how people have been persuaded to see "social"policies as the thin end of an evil communist wedge, whereas unconstrained high rents, with inflated unearned capital gains (tax free), subsidised by housing benefits, with insecurity of tenure and homeless people on the streets, are seen as pillars of a civilised free society!
Maybe they should cut back on the benefits?
https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/story_of_social_housing
Last edited:
Conditional reflex to a conditional ideological trope
Read my posts Jacob. I'm all in favour of building proper council houses.
I was almost born in a shoebox in the middle of the road - well a post-war prefab anyway and then a spanking new council house in the 60's until I left home at 23 and bought a tiny terraced cottage. Mum still in her 1 bed council bungalow.
There's nothing in the Shelter article I didn't know. I agree with everything they are saying.
I thought it might back up your ideological statement that all housing is social housing, but it didn't
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
All housing is social housing in that the whole of society needs housing.Conditional reflex to a conditional ideological trope
Read my posts Jacob. I'm all in favour of building proper council houses.
I was almost born in a shoebox in the middle of the road - well a post-war prefab anyway and then a spanking new council house in the 60's until I left home at 23 and bought a tiny terraced cottage. Mum still in her 1 bed council bungalow.
There's nothing in the Shelter article I didn't know. I agree with everything they are saying.
I thought it might back up your ideological statement that all housing is social housing, but it didn't
It was a stroke of genius on behalf of that nasty old hag, once you had a debt tying you to your home then the unions lost the power to strike, your home was now at risk if you did so a means to control the working class in the day.
RobinBHM
Established Member
thats awfully cynical.
although I wouldnt put it past the minds of those following neo liberalism
It certainly sounds plausible enough.
RobinBHM
Established Member
theres a missing perspective in this
notably it is that the UK uses land and property as an investment, its something to make money from.
the big housebuilders need land, so they buy and sell land as an investment. they build up a portfolio. They build only at a rate that keeps demand high so prices keep going up. Its known as land banking.
Add in the fact that Quantitative Easing puts money into the investment market that goes into land and property
Private housebuilding can never solve the housing crisis.
the solution is public housebuilding and or land value tax
RobinBHM
Established Member
yes, contracted out services arent always best.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
I think this is nonsense. My parents had to live in rented accommodation and after 11 years of marriage they managed to get a council house. Eventually, under the right to buy scheme, they bought their council house and worked very hard to pay off the mortgage (for example by doing cleaning jobs at a bank, on top of their day jobs). My mother is 88 and still lives in this house and is very pleased indeed that they bought it, as she has a secure paid for home and is not beholden to the council or anyone else paying rent.
My father was in a trade union in the automotive industry in Coventry and for a while was a trades union official of some sort (I don't recall the title). He became very disenchanted with the union because he regarded them as unnecessarily belligerent to the extent of damaging employer/employee relations. He was not a subservient man at all, but even he could see that seemingly endless aggressive union action would inhibit investment.
Most working people, irrespective of "class" do not wish to be dependent on the state, and mostly they wish to improve their own position and security. Home ownership for many was a means of doing that. Council houses in many areas are architecturally oppressive and unimaginative buildings that are significantly class divisive. I am well aware of this as I was a council house kid when I was at school and few let me forget it.
It is also wrong to state that capital gains are purely unearned income as if this is a total windfall. This may be so in some cases, but it must be put in the context of inflation both in property, goods generally and incomes. Gains, such as they are, can only be spent in a market that usually has risen substantially - ie the purchasing power of money has also materially changed in that a pound from 1980 had far more purchasing power than a pound today. This has to be factored in to computing the real value of gains.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Selling council houses at the market price might have been good (subject to appropriate restrictive covenants etc) if the money had been ploughed back into council housing but it was not.
Capital gains by definition are unearned and have been astronomical in the housing market, far outstripping inflation. Keeping up with inflation is all very well but would anyone be happy with negative capital gains in a deflating economy?
We ALL are dependent upon the state, with the possible exception of the odd wild man being self sufficient in the undergrowth in some neglected corner.
Capital gains by definition are unearned and have been astronomical in the housing market, far outstripping inflation. Keeping up with inflation is all very well but would anyone be happy with negative capital gains in a deflating economy?
Last edited:
Skydivermel
Established Member
I don't think buyers of new houses know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. When you look at the materials used, (mostly lightweight) the speed at which developers build them, the very lax building control, we (from my perspective) seem to be building the slums of the future.
I recently went with my sister to view a new build, I could move the internal walls simply by leaning on them. You could hear a pin drop in the next room. The fixtures i.e. boilers, radiators, kitchen cabinets, consumer units etc were all very cheap basic tat that's put in as cheap as possible. You daren't hang a picture on a plasterboard wall for fear of it coming down.
3 to 5 years from now any new build will require a substantial investment from the owner because everything is falling to bits.
I've been in the construction industry for best part of 30 years and some of what I see horrifies me.
As for old social housing it was bullet proof and built to last, most of the social housing stock is circa 100 years old and still going strong.
I recently went with my sister to view a new build, I could move the internal walls simply by leaning on them. You could hear a pin drop in the next room. The fixtures i.e. boilers, radiators, kitchen cabinets, consumer units etc were all very cheap basic tat that's put in as cheap as possible. You daren't hang a picture on a plasterboard wall for fear of it coming down.
3 to 5 years from now any new build will require a substantial investment from the owner because everything is falling to bits.
I've been in the construction industry for best part of 30 years and some of what I see horrifies me.
As for old social housing it was bullet proof and built to last, most of the social housing stock is circa 100 years old and still going strong.
Right to buy certainly can work for many.
My father-in-law bought his council flat for £13k (lived there since 1966). Easy walk into the City of London. At 92 he'll have plenty of money to pay for a nursing home if the need arises.
His two bed flat is lost to the housing association. He has had to pay thousands towards upkeep of the block and it still has cladding issues. Fellow HA tenants have paid nothing and get all the benefits of new windows, doors, fire safety improvements, new/repaired roof and the rubbish, shoddily installed but nice looking cladding. Lesson: void leasehold properties
A young workmate lived in a council flat close to Buckingham Palace with his parents and siblings. Bought it for £245k under RTB. Valued at £1M about 5 years ago. Remortgaged it as a Buy to Let and they moved to Luton, presumably now in a debt free mansion and getting impressive rent from their ex-council flat. Perfect AirBnB for tourists. Seems wrong to me that tenants can make a fortune and the council lose a property.
My parents worked all their lives in relatively low paid jobs. Except for a couple of years abroad and employment with accommodation they always lived in council houses. They saved money for good holidays and put a little bit aside for retirement.
The council offered them a downsizing move from their 3 bed house to a warden assisted retirement bungalow in a nearby village. Best move they ever made. A location they could never have afforded. Any problems with the property is fixed by the council. Council redecorate every few years and they have replaced all the kitchen units. When my Dad had a stroke (a failed carotid endarterectomy) there was very little extra needed to pay towards his care costs. If anything happens to Mum the bulk of her care costs are taken care of. When she dies her nice little bungalow will be taken up by another deserving council tenant.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
The UK housing market is entirely rigged by the government, on purpose, to create false scarcity and therefore ludicrous values. Remove all planning restrictions and hey presto! you have affordable housing for all.
You would also have an economic crisis of unimaginable proportions, the end of the entire banking system and possibly fiat currency to boot. So on that basis, enjoy your insane property values which benefit the asset owners at the expense of the wage earners.
As an example of how life could be in a different universe, Greece has a population of 11 million, and 10 million houses. There are very few restrictions on building a house anywhere you want, so most houses are valued at the build cost, or less. I have mentioned before that a 3 bedroom, 120 square metre, 20 year old house in an acre of olive trees costs €50,000. They would probably accept €40,000. The same size house to rent is around €200 to €250 a month. All because the government don't limit and restrict and forbid building houses.
You would also have an economic crisis of unimaginable proportions, the end of the entire banking system and possibly fiat currency to boot. So on that basis, enjoy your insane property values which benefit the asset owners at the expense of the wage earners.
As an example of how life could be in a different universe, Greece has a population of 11 million, and 10 million houses. There are very few restrictions on building a house anywhere you want, so most houses are valued at the build cost, or less. I have mentioned before that a 3 bedroom, 120 square metre, 20 year old house in an acre of olive trees costs €50,000. They would probably accept €40,000. The same size house to rent is around €200 to €250 a month. All because the government don't limit and restrict and forbid building houses.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
There'd be even more chaos. Britain is nearly twice the size of Greece but about 6 times the population. Greece has 3 times as much space per capita.
The basic problem is not planning but lack of policy; government inertia and a "free" market.
Similarly France is 2.3 times UK in size with only a slightly bigger population, and houses are cheaper. More than twice the space per capita.
not sure it is the government directly but houses are treated as an investment and often sold on the basis that they will earn you money, but unless you downsize or move to a cheaper location that money is tied up until you die at which point the government takes inheritance tax.
Thats about forty grand, a lot for the money when compared to here in the uk, that is the problem with a little island and being over populated so are we heading in the direction of Japan.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Perhaps also worth noting that the average salary in Greece is less than half the UK. A crude comparison which ignores weather, culture, food, etc etc - but goes some way towards explaining differential house prices.
Planning controls inhibit development - new build tends to lag the requirement. IMHO - local communities have too little control over what happens locally vs that which is imposed.
In France and Spain (don't really know Greece) relatively uncontrolled development leads to a blight on the edge of many towns and villages where disused and decaying industrial units are an eyesore - it is obviously cheaper to build new than restore or demolish..
Planning controls inhibit development - new build tends to lag the requirement. IMHO - local communities have too little control over what happens locally vs that which is imposed.
In France and Spain (don't really know Greece) relatively uncontrolled development leads to a blight on the edge of many towns and villages where disused and decaying industrial units are an eyesore - it is obviously cheaper to build new than restore or demolish..
