to say this outloud.....recycle our homes(47 Posts)
i know i probebly am bu but....
all houses and homes state owned and you live in them til you die and houses get recycled?
am ducking now...
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Hands off my house, lady <narrows eyes>
No. Massive implications here, it's a hugely complex issue.
E.g. with the onset of pensions being eroded, many people started to rely on the equity they ploughed into their homes to pay for their elderly care, or downgrade to a smaller place to provide an income.
Or would you go the whole hog down the communism route? <peers> Because that's a different ballgame altogether...
I think there is some merit in that idea. unfortunately the govt would be in control of rent (and I trust them less than the mortgage company, which is a sad state of affairs).
Also they'd be inclined to turf you out once they deem your house is too large for the number of occupants and I be t they wouldn't compensate you for all the house improvements you'd done.
This would only work if you could keep the governments sticky mitts out of it!
I think Nordic once lived in the USSR and is hankering for the olden days.
I think she also loves the idea that even though all property is state owned, becasue some people are more equal than others, they get better places to live.
Or did I miss something ?
catinthehat2 - exactly. Communist theory, might sound great. Communist reality, not so much. Humans are humans and they're all shitheads to each other no matter what idealology the government of the time claims to abide by.
Would you say don't pay rent then? I would say, if all houses were equal (and state owned) then it wouldn't make any sense for anyoen to pay rent.
But then, we'd all have to be paid less to make up for this fact.
It also puts away the idea of owning something that's yours and that noone can touch.
and you'd have to move if your family circumstance changed - eg you got married (or lived with a partner) or had children, or your children moved away.
haha! I did not!
However, my friend is german and lives in Berlin. She said that most of the flats there are state owned and people just live in them until they die and then they get rented out again to another family, also another country i cant remember where you rent the space between the walls not the building itself?
Why would you need to be given the cash for the improvements you had done? youd die and so would have enjoyed your house while you were there.
I think it would work quite well, a house is just a house its somewhere to live until you die-do you really need to own it? you cant take it when your dead. people wouldnt be so het up about owning their own house cos there wouldnt be a choice...?
hand off my husbands house thanks
he owns it
I am about to own it and pay the mortgage to keep it
Nordic, if you live there until you die, then no, you wouldn't need cash to compensate you for house improvements. But, if the govt force you to move because all your DC have left home and you have a couple in a 4 bedroom house, then yes, you would want to be financially compensated if you'd done lots of expensive improvemnts to the house.
I believe the govt are considering forced moves with council tenants at the moment. it takes away anyones incentive to do home improvements.
no i dont own my home. But i do pay the same as many peoples mortgage on something i dont own so i can understand why people want something to show for the huge financial costs involved in owning your own home.
But if all homes were state owned then all rents could be lowered and wed all be better off cos you wouldnt be paying x amount for your mortgage nor i for my private rent.
wed all be on a similar level. I dont agree with selling your home to pay for health care either.
Council tennants are allowed to improve their homes- are they compensated? I agree with forcing people to move on when their children have moved away so no arguments there. It is worth it because you lived there and enjoyed the home while you stayed there?
Council tenants are only compensated in the fact that they enjoy the improvements to their homes for as long as they choose to live there. If they were forced to move then someone else would be benefitting from their work/money. If they choose to move then they have decided for themselves to no longer benefit from their house improvements. I don't thionk you could trust any govt (certainly not the one we've got) to be fair. Poor people are not high on their list of priorities.
well i cant see the tories turfing out the rich and normal home owners to give the poor and all council homes at all to be honest!!
surely it would be more fair than what we have now...
Fair on who, though?
What if you've worked hard, I mean really really hard, and been frugal in your earlier years, and now have a big house with land and no mortgage.
Having put in all that hard graft, it would be pretty unfair to have any less to show for it.
Say for arguments sake this system had been in place already when such a person was born/young and when they came of age, they were given their standard 3 bed semi or whatever, what motivation would they have to work hard if not to end up with a big house with land and no mortgage?
They might just not bother!
People work just as hard and end up with fuck all-thats ot fair either. at least this way all people would end up equal in one way?
I think it would be better if owning a house was truly a choice. There should be sufficient council housing available for everyone who wants it, with reasonable rents.
If you want a big, fuck off house, then fair enough, if you've got the money you can buy one. But if you just want a decent home, for a fair amount of money then that shouldn't be out of reach, like it is for a lot of people. We are forced in this country, to buy overpriced houses, because there is not enough social housing to go around and we have to live somewhere.
I love my home. Its where DD was born, its where DH has bonfires, its where DS climbes trees, its the place we're scrimping and saving to restore, its the place with potential for elderly parents or poor youngsters to live, its where we are part of the community. Yes lots of other people work hard and don't own a house, but we work hard exactly because creating a permanent home for my family is really really important to me. Thats my choice; I don't choose big screen TVs or foreign holidays, I choose a home.
You can't boil it down to just being a 'house' to be allocated out.
I can see how this would be a good idea in theory. I'm a young professional but unless I acquire a partner on an equal or better salary, or get together with friends and share a mortgage, I wouldn't realistically ever be able to afford to buy even a small house. Yet many people in my parents' generation have paid-off mortgages thanks to previously low house prices compared to wages. If your parents are fortunate enough to be in this position you might be handed-down a house or the equivalent money. If not then you're on your own and have a lifetime of renting or assisted housing unless you're on a well above average salary.
Why should having hardworking but ultimately lucky parents affect whether you can own your own home or not?
I once heard it suggested that everyone should be started out in life on equal terms - whether at £0 or £100,000 or whatever. You can't hand money or property down to the next generation so your parents' incomes have no effect, and whether your dad was a banker or a dustman you still all start out the same at the bottom of the property ladder. Where you end up age 45 depends solely on your choices and own work. I'm sure in practice it would all fall apart but it makes for interesting pondering.
But who is going to work if everybody is automatically entiteled to a house? Who is going to pay for it? Already half of the country is on the benefits because they dont have any motivation to work, they'll get free housing, schooling, medicine etc etc. So what will happen when everybody will get a free house and go on benefits?
There are thousands of unoccupied houses in the UK which could do with recycling before building too many new ones.
Nobody should get a free house. The majority of people in council/HA housing pay rent. they just pay a reasonable amount rather than the often extortionate rents charged by private landlords. Imo council/HA housing should be available for everyone. Everyone should still pay rent (unless on benefits) and people should be able to buy a house if they want to (but not from the stock of social housing, which should go back into the system when people die/move out).
And who's going to decide who gets to live in which house? Because although the idea of all people being equal may sound fair it has to be said that not all houses are equal.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.