Housing benefit cap.
Discussion
98elise said:
xjsdriver said:
Mrr T said:
You can always trust a lefty to blame Maggie.
Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The councils have found themselves with a shortfall of available properties to let out, we have record levels of homelessness - of course you're right - the sales of council properties made no difference what-so-ever!!!Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.
As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.
I was at the annual RICS residential property convention yesterday.
The answer, from many different fields - from the HCA to Mark Frisk (Housing Minister until a few years ago) to Legal and General to the RICS themselves - was "institutional build to let investors." Apparently, these corporations are going to come here from the US and Germany to "make renting the new normal." There was more, and actually some of it quite logical and - in reality - already with us in all but name.
Another interesting thought for the individual BTL investor which was mentioned by a few different speakers: interest rate rises predicted first in the States and then here in the New Year will push heavily geared individual investors out of the market. It will be interesting to see if the available stock will be sucked up by private owners or the aforementioned new corporate forms.
And, btw, most of the professionals there hated affordability testing as much as the next guy. Savillis, in particular, had some clear analysis showing the drag it is placing on the market, suggesting that property transactions per annum are currently about 500,000 short of where they would like them to be (currently about 1m p.a.; were up at 1.6-1.7m before the recession).
The answer, from many different fields - from the HCA to Mark Frisk (Housing Minister until a few years ago) to Legal and General to the RICS themselves - was "institutional build to let investors." Apparently, these corporations are going to come here from the US and Germany to "make renting the new normal." There was more, and actually some of it quite logical and - in reality - already with us in all but name.
Another interesting thought for the individual BTL investor which was mentioned by a few different speakers: interest rate rises predicted first in the States and then here in the New Year will push heavily geared individual investors out of the market. It will be interesting to see if the available stock will be sucked up by private owners or the aforementioned new corporate forms.
And, btw, most of the professionals there hated affordability testing as much as the next guy. Savillis, in particular, had some clear analysis showing the drag it is placing on the market, suggesting that property transactions per annum are currently about 500,000 short of where they would like them to be (currently about 1m p.a.; were up at 1.6-1.7m before the recession).
Mrr T said:
xjsdriver said:
Mrr T said:
You can always trust a lefty to blame Maggie.
Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The councils have found themselves with a shortfall of available properties to let out, we have record levels of homelessness - of course you're right - the sales of council properties made no difference what-so-ever!!!Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The properties owned by the councils where not available to let, they had people living in them. Or are you suggesting the councils should have forced many families into one property.
Let me explain this very slowly for you.
Lets say the total number of houses in the UK was 100, 50 are privately owned and 50 by the council. Lets say the councils sell 10 to tenants. How many houses are there now? Your right there are still 100 houses.
The shortfall in public sector housing is not about council house sales but about a system which requires councils to provide housing to more and more people.
As for record levels of homelessness its all about the mad way figures are recorded not about real homelessness.
http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/homel...
Who actually "believes" that all Thatcher touch turned to gold (well of course it did for the lucky few)
For the rest of us it turned very quickly into krap!
Remember the Poll Tax idea - now that turned out well!
Do you actually know what you are talking about (for one I'm not a "lefty" - but your obviously a great follower of the Thatcher school of only the rich - get richer lol)? I believe in some sort of equilibrium in our society but then you may also be too!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I didnt say £40k in 18 months is realistic. Its not unless your living expenses are zero - then you can just about make it with a take home of £2.5k per month for 18 months; not very realistic though.I said £40k salaries in London and the South East are commonplace. Frankly if you are late 20s and have been in a professional role for say 7-8 years in London or the South East and you are not on that much, you have done something wrong.
dxg said:
I was at the annual RICS residential property convention yesterday.
The answer, from many different fields - from the HCA to Mark Frisk (Housing Minister until a few years ago) to Legal and General to the RICS themselves - was "institutional build to let investors." Apparently, these corporations are going to come here from the US and Germany to "make renting the new normal." There was more, and actually some of it quite logical and - in reality - already with us in all but name.
Another interesting thought for the individual BTL investor which was mentioned by a few different speakers: interest rate rises predicted first in the States and then here in the New Year will push heavily geared individual investors out of the market. It will be interesting to see if the available stock will be sucked up by private owners or the aforementioned new corporate forms.
And, btw, most of the professionals there hated affordability testing as much as the next guy. Savillis, in particular, had some clear analysis showing the drag it is placing on the market, suggesting that property transactions per annum are currently about 500,000 short of where they would like them to be (currently about 1m p.a.; were up at 1.6-1.7m before the recession).
Very interesting, thank you for posting.The answer, from many different fields - from the HCA to Mark Frisk (Housing Minister until a few years ago) to Legal and General to the RICS themselves - was "institutional build to let investors." Apparently, these corporations are going to come here from the US and Germany to "make renting the new normal." There was more, and actually some of it quite logical and - in reality - already with us in all but name.
Another interesting thought for the individual BTL investor which was mentioned by a few different speakers: interest rate rises predicted first in the States and then here in the New Year will push heavily geared individual investors out of the market. It will be interesting to see if the available stock will be sucked up by private owners or the aforementioned new corporate forms.
And, btw, most of the professionals there hated affordability testing as much as the next guy. Savillis, in particular, had some clear analysis showing the drag it is placing on the market, suggesting that property transactions per annum are currently about 500,000 short of where they would like them to be (currently about 1m p.a.; were up at 1.6-1.7m before the recession).
That said, I don't suppose the Savill's chap though to question if affordability should have been in far sharper focus pre-crunch? We then might not have had the Northern Rocks to sort out if it had...
Maybe the current rules are the right rules?
SPS said:
Really - how many do you think sold them off and those properties in many cases went into private landlord hands - get real.
Which had people living in them. He's right, unless these ex-authority places were being snapped up as holiday homes the net effect on housing stock was precisely zero.
SPS said:
Mrr T said:
xjsdriver said:
Mrr T said:
You can always trust a lefty to blame Maggie.
Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The councils have found themselves with a shortfall of available properties to let out, we have record levels of homelessness - of course you're right - the sales of council properties made no difference what-so-ever!!!Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The properties owned by the councils where not available to let, they had people living in them. Or are you suggesting the councils should have forced many families into one property.
Let me explain this very slowly for you.
Lets say the total number of houses in the UK was 100, 50 are privately owned and 50 by the council. Lets say the councils sell 10 to tenants. How many houses are there now? Your right there are still 100 houses.
The shortfall in public sector housing is not about council house sales but about a system which requires councils to provide housing to more and more people.
As for record levels of homelessness its all about the mad way figures are recorded not about real homelessness.
http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/homel...
Who actually "believes" that all Thatcher touch turned to gold (well of course it did for the lucky few)
For the rest of us it turned very quickly into krap!
Remember the Poll Tax idea - now that turned out well!
Do you actually know what you are talking about (for one I'm not a "lefty" - but your obviously a great follower of the Thatcher school of only the rich - get richer lol)? I believe in some sort of equilibrium in our society but then you may also be too!
As for Thatcher she did some good thing but ducked others.
Lets remember the great times before Thatcher:
1. Power cuts.
2. The dead not being buried.
3. Rubbish in the streets.
4. British Leyland.
5. The highest tax rates in Europe.
6. The highest number of days lost to strikes in Europe.
7. A phone service which would take 3 weeks to reconnect your phone when you moved, and the only option was a dial model in grey.
You are welcome to go back to those great times if you want.
As for the poll tax what's wrong with a system where you pay for the services you use.
SPS said:
98elise said:
xjsdriver said:
Mrr T said:
You can always trust a lefty to blame Maggie.
Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The councils have found themselves with a shortfall of available properties to let out, we have record levels of homelessness - of course you're right - the sales of council properties made no difference what-so-ever!!!Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.
As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.
SPS said:
98elise said:
xjsdriver said:
Mrr T said:
You can always trust a lefty to blame Maggie.
Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The councils have found themselves with a shortfall of available properties to let out, we have record levels of homelessness - of course you're right - the sales of council properties made no difference what-so-ever!!!Its so left wing saying we did not build council house to replace those sold to tenants. Are you suggesting the houses sold to tenants some how disappeared!!
No those house where still part of the housing stock and the same people lived in them. If they had not been sold then guess what the same people would have lived in them!!!
The sales made NO difference.
The Council need empty propertiies, not occupied houses.
As has been said above, when sold the same family lives in the same house. No more or less properties are available for occupation.
Please explain to me how having a tenanted property give you extra stock available for other tenants?
Lets say the council has 1 house and 2 tenants. Tenant 1 can live in the house but tenant 2 has to sit on the waiting list. Regardless of what happens with regard to ownership of house 1, tenant 2 cannot be housed, and the waiting list remains the same. 1 in a house, and 1 on the list.
The only resolution is for add more stock.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We aren't talking about 'professional roles' though are we?We are talking about everyone. The general population of 18-30.
If I am shown evidence that the majority of under 30's are paid £40k or more, then I'll be happy to accept that, but at the moment I just don't buy it.
Mrr T said:
I am fascinated by where the Scots comments comes from.
As for Thatcher she did some good thing but ducked others.
Lets remember the great times before Thatcher:
1. Power cuts.
2. The dead not being buried.
3. Rubbish in the streets.
4. British Leyland.
5. The highest tax rates in Europe.
6. The highest number of days lost to strikes in Europe.
7. A phone service which would take 3 weeks to reconnect your phone when you moved, and the only option was a dial model in grey.
You are welcome to go back to those great times if you want.
As for the poll tax what's wrong with a system where you pay for the services you use.
1.No pc nonsense.As for Thatcher she did some good thing but ducked others.
Lets remember the great times before Thatcher:
1. Power cuts.
2. The dead not being buried.
3. Rubbish in the streets.
4. British Leyland.
5. The highest tax rates in Europe.
6. The highest number of days lost to strikes in Europe.
7. A phone service which would take 3 weeks to reconnect your phone when you moved, and the only option was a dial model in grey.
You are welcome to go back to those great times if you want.
As for the poll tax what's wrong with a system where you pay for the services you use.
2.Could smoke anywhere.
3.Go to an interview and start there and then with no safety/training video etc.
4.Didnt have to wear a hi-viz vest to go to the toilet.
5.No sorn,gatsos,red light cameras.
6.No stupid speed limits.
7.Hardly any ad breaks.
Good times.
p1stonhead said:
I didnt say £40k in 18 months is realistic. Its not unless your living expenses are zero - then you can just about make it with a take home of £2.5k per month for 18 months; not very realistic though.
I said £40k salaries in London and the South East are commonplace. Frankly if you are late 20s and have been in a professional role for say 7-8 years in London or the South East and you are not on that much, you have done something wrong.
Disagree. It certainly is not the case in civil engineering (but that is changing, slowly).I said £40k salaries in London and the South East are commonplace. Frankly if you are late 20s and have been in a professional role for say 7-8 years in London or the South East and you are not on that much, you have done something wrong.
It is also not the case in a lot of pensions, research, 'tech' roles etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff