Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

stoneman 10:05 Tue Apr 14
Right to buy.

So I live in a semi detached house, my neighbours have been living there for 10 years they are council tenants I am not.

In the 10 years I have paid out for new windows, kitchen, bathroom and guttering. Not been cheap.

In the same time they have had the same paid for by the council and the tax man
I pay a mortgage, they pay £300 a month in rent.

They can now but that house at up to 70% off the market value.

Where is the fairness in that? They have been a burden on the tax payers for 10 years and now they get rewarded for it.

New cars on the drive, Sky etc etc

Once again those that work hard and ask for nothing and make their own way in life get shafted.

Eddie B 10:07 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

You live next door to council tenants? Ewww.

worm 10:07 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

I said all that the first time around.
The hard working man gets fucked in the arse in this country.
Unfortunately for the hard working man he can't afford to fuck off somewhere else.

stoneman 10:09 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

I know!

I'm surrounded by them but they are all very nice but just got more cash to throw around than I do because they decided to use the state to house them.

stoneman 10:11 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

And another thing!

I rent a garage off the council but because I'm not a council house tenant I have to pay VAT on the bill but their tenants don't have to!

penners28 10:12 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

but these people live in "poverty", and instances like this are "made up daily mail bollocks"

thought everyone knew this

Iron Duke 10:14 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

Thanks Thatcher.

Ricky 10:15 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

It's a really shitty unfair situation Stoneman. This sort of thing winds me up no end.

The Kronic 10:16 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

You should have got a council house then you whinging tart.
Yes I know, there's fuck all left because of Thatcher's previously disastrous right to buy scheme which only resulted in a mass shortage of them.

defjam 10:17 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

Bet they're all Asians, Blacks and immigrants as well.

The Kronic 10:17 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

And why have your neighbours been a burden on the taxpayer? Are they jobless?

stoneman 10:18 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

Poverty?

My neighbour has 2 new cars on the drive, the guy over the road owns his own steelworks company, new merc on the drive and a £70k extension on the side.

Surely council houses are for the needy? Plus when they are all sold people will be moaning we need more council houses.

If they want to buy the house then it should be at market value.

zebthecat 10:18 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

I have never got the whole right to buy thing beyond the fact that it is a very good short tern bribe to win votes with a bit of long term social gerrymandering thrown in.
As a housing policy it is utterly daft. How on earth you fix the dearth of social housing by selling off what you have at a whopping (taxpayer funded) discount is a mystery.

The Kronic 10:19 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

zebthecat 10:18

Spot on.

PardewsBanjoString 10:19 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

Would you rather someone with wedge came in, mopped them up and then private rented them back to people that didnt give a fuck about the place?

stoneman 10:20 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

I never once thought about getting a council house, I worked hard to get a mortgage.

Why are they a burden? Are you dense? Who pays for their new windows, kitchens, bathrooms and general maintenance work on the property? The Council do, who funds the Council? The tax payer does.
Who is the tax payer? Me and you.

stoneman 10:21 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

I would rather that we didn't sell them to people, let's keep the stock for people who need them.

The Kronic 10:21 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

soneman 10:18

If that's the case then you've every right to be aggrieved.. Buying a property with a mortgage was a mistake I still rue.

iMac Hunt 10:21 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

C&P Richard Murphy Tax Research UK

The morning’s headlines will be dominated by the Tories plan to extend the ‘right-to-buy’ scheme to housing association tenants. Reports suggests that up to 1.3 million people will get this right at discounts of between £77,000 and £102,000 if they get their way.

I want to out this in context. That is a planned giveaway of assets that do not belong to the government of at least £100 billion, or more than last year’s whole deficit.

The first thing to say is that this is profligacy on a scale that is reckless beyond imagination. Any suggestion that there is a shred of prudence in this is impossible to sustain.

Nor can there be any pretence that there is any logic to this plan. If Thatcher’s plan was to boost private ownership and a private rental market when the state was dominating the supply of rental property it was a poorly reasoned logic, but at least there was some logic to it. Now there is none: it is social housing that is in desperately short supply and this policy will simply deny opportunity to millions who need it in the future.

Third, the random largesse of this plan is offensive. I am in favour of redistribution of wealth but not random redistribution.

Fourth, this plan will inevitably end up as a boost to the private rental market: half of all former council properties sold by right-to-buy tenants are now in that sector. This will not then be a mechanism for providing an opportunity for home ownership for many. It will instead increase the concentration of asset ownership in the UK, which is the last thing we need.

Fifth, this makes no economic sense at all. When what we need is more housing this will divert funding into an expansion of the second hand housing market with focus being on asset sales and not new house building. Employment opportunities will be lost as a result as well.

Sixth, when many housing association properties are, inevitably, in areas where there is need meaning this this policy can only increase the polarisation in society. And when many housing association properties are also now what are called section 106 properties that create areas of mixed housing it is almost inevitable that these houses will sell first and again reduce diversity.

So what is this about? I suggest there are three reasons for this policy.

The first is hatred of the state. This is deliberately designed to undermine social provision.

Second, I think this is about plundering state assets for the benefit if a few in society.

And third this is about deliberately increasing inequality when its impact is already very apparent in our society. Housing is one of our most basic rights. This is a policy that seeks to deny that to many.

I am sickened by this policy and all that it represents. I cannot pretend otherwise.

, 10:23 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

The scheme should be called "Wrong to sell".

The proper way to do things is to encourage the likes of stoney's wealthy neighbours to move into homes of their own. There's the rub though because why would they want to put themselves in hock for over priced property?

The Kronic 10:24 Tue Apr 14
Re: Right to buy.

stoneman 10:20

Why not? Is it snobbery?

Page 1 - Next