to say this outloud.....recycle our homes

[NordicPrincess]

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...

Yes all houses are not equal for instance.

Who gets the house with the sea/country view
who gets the house overlooking the gas works.
Who gets the house 10 minutes away from the shops/station
Who gets the one with a 30 minute bus ride
to all amenities.
Who gets the house within the catchment of a good school
Who is put next to the roughest school in the area.
Who gets the character home with big garden
Who gets the slavebox on a postage stamp.

And how long before the people with money
do a private deal with poorer people to get the house they prefer

Silly idea

Someone above posted about how important it was to them to create a home for their family so they don't take holidays, have flash things etc etc. This really grated on me actually.

In fact, EVERYBODY wants to create a SECURE home for their family, old and young. Its an appalling fact of this country, that unless you met your life partner early on and did that scrimping and saving to buy your first home, many of you just won't own property. Or perhaps you got together with somebody with a place of their own and thats how you became a homeowner. Or maybe (like so many of my friends), you got a 'living inheritance' for your massive deposit.

Well into my late thirties, my DP and I work our arses off as allied health professionals. Unless we inherit somewhere, we won't own a home. Unless someone gives us 30-40 thousand pounds for a deposit, we won't own a home. We did in fact buy into the Shared Equity home ownership scam and bought a small flat in London. When we had children we found it too small. Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to sell it easily or quickly. The experience left us with a bitter taste in our mouths once we paid off 3 legal teams (ours, the government regeneration agency, and the developers) from the meagre profit. In all, we stepped off the property ladder with 8 grand in our pocket. No deposit there then.

I have 2 small DC's and we will have nothing to give to them. This sits okay with me. What doesn't sit well is the fact that they may possibly move house every single year, sometimes twice in one year if 2009 is anything to go by, simply because we are slaves to a private rental economy which rewards only the owner of the property we live in at the time. Other renters will know living like this is draining.

I would ask that before people decide that the reason they own property is simply because they "worked hard" to get it, maybe to have a good think about how much luck played a part in your good fortune.

Interesting idea - if we were starting a country from scratch then might be worth considering! Far too many problems and issues to consider with the modern obsession over our homes though!

If you are saying everyone should HAVE a home then absolutely, why should some people have 2 or 3 when some have none. A good time to think about the homeless during weather like this brrr.....

It probably would've worked well until the USSR and China tried it out for us and crashed to the floor and are STILL trying to pick themselves up.

THankfully we don't have state owned homes (aside from council houses, and tbh I'd rather pay an extortionate mortgage rate than live with rif-raf). Don't you think the government dictate enough?

Sorry, I'm afraid I love "owning" my own home (well, the bit that the mortgage company don't own!) I love being able to do things to improve it without anyone's permission. I chose the house and it's location because I love it- I would hate to just be randomly assigned a house.

To me, it's not just a place to live in till you die. Where I live affects my quality of life hugely. I'm happy to put money into it, because I spend lots of time there, and I'd like to think that it might be an investment of sorts

here here Jooly

Whilst I love owning my own home I also can see AdelaideJo's point. DH and I bought our first, small house before prices went up, then used the equity to buy a little bigger, then had help to buy current house. We both work very hard but luck also played a huge part. A relative, who also works very hard, and has a baby on the way, has really struggled to get on the property ladder. Not sure collectivism / communism is the answer but more social housing would help.

Why stop at houses?.... Why not just have one standard car that everyone rents and passes on? Why not one standard suit of clothes that get recycled and passed around? Why not one standard package holiday to the same destination? Sofa? Cooker? Paintings?

We enjoy owning all kinds of posessions for reasons far beyond their base functionality. YABU

Its been tried though hasn't it? East Germany anyone?

Sounds like another 'its not fair, I want what you've got' thread to me.

not at all! I dont want a mortgage at all. I just want access to a decent home, i dont mind renting. please dont try and tell me otherwise!

I dont see the point in owning your own howm, you only get to enjoy it while you are alive.

Who gets the house with the sea view? who gets the house with the gas works?

dont people who own their houses have the same choices? I would suppose you would apply for the area you want to live in. Houses with 2 beds would be x 3 beds y and 4 beds z.

If all houses were state owned then there would be loads of housing stock and so much more choice than current council housing.

I wasnt aware there was a shortage of cars or cookers going round so not really the same.

rather than live with the rif raf? i hope thats a joke, areas wouldnt be full of posh stuck up rich people or scrounging scum, it would be much more diverse than what we have now.

Whoever it was who said about the slave stamp box-are you sure you just dont beleive that you are entitled to better whil that kind of home is right for someone else? whats makes you think its not good enough for you? see housing needs to be made much fairer.

People moan about the poors sense of entitlements buts its more than met by the riches sense of entitlement, fine for them but not me no never.

I love your ideas and if our nation was starting from scratch, that would be the way to go. Nothings going to shift me from my big country house with acres of grounds though.

In Singapore (very definitely NOT a communist country) IIRC about 90% of the population live in social housing & there isn't any stigma to it. Well-paid people & small business owners live on the same kind of estates as much poorer people.

(I think you get a loan from the government to buy your flat though, rather than just renting from them, and I don't know what happens when you die. And I think some estates are still seen as traditionally more working class, there must be a hierarchy of desirable areas - I don't fully understand the system)

There are still private flats & houses for the really wealthy, I don't think it would ever work for housing to be 100% state-owned.

And presumably there are poor people who don't meet the requirements to get state housing.

What works in Singapore wouldn't neccessarily work anywhere else, mind, but it is an interesting example of state-owned housing not just being for the poorest.

Nordic Princess you are missing my point, this whole thread is about the state allocating homes to meet peoples needs.

If you are allocating state owned homes by need and you have 4 families who need 3 bed houses in the same area how do you allocate each house to each family.

Who will decide the Browns get the sea view whilst the Smiths will be housed at the back of town overlooking the Gasworks.

Who decides to allocate the the Victorian house with 200ft Garden to the Martins, whilst the Robins will be given the new build on a small plot.

I think under the state people will only get a choice as to which town they want to live in depending on family ties and work, as long as a family is given a home to suit their needs, the state will not care that some have a nicer home than others

BTW I didnt say anywhere on my post that I felt I personally deserve a better home than a slave box on a postage stamp, in fact my 2 bed Victorian semi with 100ft garden actually cost LESS than the two bed new builds on tiny plots on the next street to mine.

And I certainly have no intention of saying anything about you renting rather than buying as I am assuming you will have made provision for the time when you retire and can no longer afford your rent on a pension and get thrown out of your rented home, or will you rely on the state to pay your rent in HB or allocate you a nice council property when you are homeless and of course the state will be happy to pay for all your care needs as you wont have any assets to sell to help pay for yourself

Psammyad:"And I think some estates are still seen as traditionally more working class, there must be a hierarchy of desirable areas - I don't fully understand the system"

Exactamundo.

Some people use brown envelopes are more equal than others - I think I said that a couple of days ago.

they would allocate the same way they do now?

the state should pay for all my care needs when im old-unless you seriously loaded who can actually afford to pay care costs when they are old? If you can then you are in the minority because it isnt like that for most epeople at all

i think in that case the two bed new builds would be the stamp sized homes no?

Its a horribly difficult one, isn't it. It is such a problem that there isn't a decent supply of rented housing in this country that isn't dependent on the vagaries of individual private landlords. That's not a criticism of the landlords themselves, just the fact that you want to live in a house until you choose to move, not until your landlord gets divorced/dies/moves back in.

I've always thought it would be a good idea if there were pension funds that you could put your savings in that used their funds to build or buy houses which were then rented out at a fair price but with long term tenancy agreements (of course with clauses that you would lose the house if you behaved unreasonably, got into arrears on rent, abused neighbours or whatever).

So then the pension funds would get an income not through speculating on the stock market, but by getting a steady and predictable rental income, while at the same time people could rent a house and know that they weren't going to get thrown out at any time if their landlord's circumstances changed.

One of my neighbours was recently successful in getting a housing association house, and she was so grateful that she had a house where she could know that the probability was that she would be able to stay as long as she wanted, and where she would be able to paint the walls the colour she wanted too. She'd had to move 6 times in the past five years in private rented housing (admittedly our area is particularly bad for rental supply).

Slightly off topic but not much, but Friend who knows about these things told me that there is enough empty space in flats and undeveloped spaces above shops in London alone to house all the homeless people in the UK. I think the State should make it compulsory for all such empty space to be converted to flats and let out, and I'm not much of an interventionist. I think your solution, despite its Marxist appeal, would lead to widespread unhappiness as Grand Designs and Location Location Location become redundant. Just think of the dross they'd fill that telly space with.

Sorry Nordic princess you still do not understand

We are talking about every home being state owned from Buckingham Palace to a studio flat in the rough end of east London.

Most council houses are fairly uniform with older properties being bigger than newer but all in all apart from a few exceptions they are pretty much of a muchness as most of them would have been built as council or HA properties.

Private housing is different they would have been built to sell, and the price would reflect the type of house and the location where the house is.

For instance the highest priced 3 bed property in Ryde IOW where I live is 769k for that you get a detached home in extensive grounds, a stream running in your garden a large conservatory and a swimming pool, in a semi rural location with a good bus service
The cheapest is 122k for that you get a semi
with smaller rooms, small garden in a built up area where they have just cut the bus service.

Now if the state owned both properties and allocated them just by need IE given to the families who require a three bed home, one family will be given the detached with swimming pool and the other put in the semi, so my question still stands who would decide who gets the nicer home.

And also like most people I cant afford to pay all my care costs when I am old, however
as I own my house outright with no mortgage or rent to pay I can afford to put away money very month to save for my old age or spend as I choose.

Also like most people I expect to have 10-20
between retirement and needing to have care (in fact I may not even need care) as I have no rent or mortgage there is no possibility of me being moved from my home if I have no more money coming in apart from my pension.

Renters however will still have to find rent even when they are on a pension and can be chucked out by their landlord therefore someone has to fund the rent they have to pay and that will be the tax payer.

And no I wont be able to fund all my care by selling my home infact if either my DH or me need care and the other is still living in the property the house cannot be sold, but even though I think its totally unfair and should not happen eventually my home may have to be sold to help fund mine or DH care

Either way of course I will end up being less of a burden on the future generation than someone makes an informed choice to rent instead of buy

Stands up and applauds AdelaideJo

Just because someone can't be a homeowner, it doesn't mean that they chose to fritter away money on "big TVs" or holidays.

Absolutely.

And no, my rif-raf comment wasn't a joke, I don't WANT to live with the scum on the edge of society if it's all the same, I'd rather PICK an area, buy a house and live there-then leave it to my children. You make out that once we're dead the home gets demolished. It's called an investment. AND like someone else said, with art work, holidays and cars, it isn't down to a function but a want. If you want a decent house in a decent area, then bloody well work for it like the rest of us. The government are not a means to an end, they are not there to supply housing to people who don't agree with housing, they provide certain housing for people who are down and out-and it you've seen the state of it, you'll know why. WHy you'd want to OPT into such a system is beyond me.