To wonder what the country would be like of we all live in ha/council houses

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

And no one owned property? If everyone lived in a space that was good for them and their family and we all paid the same based on space ie 1 bedroom = PCM 2 bedroom = a bit more PCM.
This would mean that no one would get the rough end of the deal as mps would also be in the same situation.
Fair rent for everyone, money constantly going to the government.
I wonder if it'd encourage people to have more children or prohibit them from wanting more I they had to move to allow for another bedroom but then had to pay more?
Probably flawed massively somehow but I don't see why it couldn't work?

[threesocksmorgan]

but who would people look down on?
who would they judge as beneath them?

[WileyRoadRunner]

but who would people look down on?
who would they judge as beneath them?

hasn't this been done to death?

By the way you missed

But who would the squeezed middle class get to be jealous and bitter about.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

I don't see why fair housing for all must mean a totalitarian regime?!
What an illogical jump!

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Btw we own our own house... It doesn't stop me from being able to see how life for millions of other people could be better if we didn't own.

[Morloth]

Well, what happens to the people who don't want to live like this?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"True communism has never actually been tried though - it's always been corrupt in some way as some people are more equal than others"

That's the definition of being tried. Any ideological system relies on people to carry it out. It can't exist in glorious isolation. If, in practice, it doesn't work then it's probably because it's a flawed ideology. People are creative individuals and they are territorial. For that reason, limiting living space to some bog-standard average would result in misery.

[DontmindifIdo]

thinking about this again, I think the premise of this is that the current set up doesn't work for the majority of people, but that's not the case. While most people would like prices to be lower, that doesn't mean they don't like our current system and the freedom it gives you to control your own housing if you have the money to pay.

Under HA rules, our 3 bed house that we bought as a couple then had 1 DC would be under occupied, and the 2 bed flat we rented before was too. Our mortgage is about 25% of our combined base income, so we can comfortably afford it, we expect to be mortgage free when i'm around 45, so will then effectively live 'for free' for the rest of our lives (current life expectancies, probably best part of 40 years), that's worth having slightly higher housing costs for the short period of our lives while we're paying it. most owner occupied are fully intending to pay off their mortgages before retirement and then also live 'for free'.

What would make the situation in this country better would be more HA properties - apart from anything else, at the bottom end of the rental market it would push down prices private landlords could charge, which would have a general downward pressure on house prices. (Or at least take out the fuel buy to let buyers have put into the housing market, if it's not such a good investment anymore, people will put their money elsewhere)

[whois]

It's a shit idea. Why should someone working low hours in a low stres low skill job get to live in as nice an area or house as someone working in a high pressure high hour high skill higher pay job?

You are advocating communism which doesn't work.

However if the housing stock was priced at market rents, and the housing stock was variable as it is now with private letting BUT it was owned by the govt and tenancies were more secure then that might be better.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Whois - thats kind of what I'm saying ... Having thought about it though I wonder whether caps on all rent would work better but then there might be empty houses if people couldn't afford the mortgages if rent didn't cover them... Hmm

There is something not right with the current housing situation, I'm just trying to figure out how it could be fairer and no homelessness issues etc

[DontmindifIdo]

Thing is, when renting, square footage wasn't our only consideration - we rented a 2 bed place in SE London for £1,400 a month before buying, however, we could have got a similar sized place for a lot less money in a different part of London. We paid more for a decent commute, to live in a nice area, and to have a flat decorated to a high spec. (If you get to decorate your own place if you rent it, this will mean the standards would be different in different flats in the same block.) There's a lot more variation in rental and housing prices than just the size/number of bedrooms. People don't buy just off size, and renters are the same.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I thinik there would develop a black market in buildings. Certain buildings would be designated 'commercial properties' (shops, hotels, factories, restaurants) and owners would offer them as kind of holiday lets, especially those in interesting places. Gradually - with a bit of money changing hands - those holiday lets would become permanent second homes and all kinds of officials would get rich on the back of it. Others would secretly build lovely places 'off grid', outside of the planning regulations, underground even... and the same would apply there.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Yes that's true, if all areas cost the same to live in though would there be 'nice' areas anymore?
There would certainly be more convenient areas though.

[DontmindifIdo]

Jazz - more council properties would have a downward pressure on the private rentals because there would be less demand on them. This would mean buy to let would be less attractive as an investment, people with say, £250k to invest would be able to get better returns from other investments/just keeping it in savings and start quietly leaving the market. That would reduce the competition on 'entry level' properties, reducing prices - and bit by bit that would feed through to the rest of the housing market. It doesn't mean the rest of the market needs to be tampered with, just the government set about a massive building project, building council properties at a high quality, it would take a lot of the pressure off.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Of course there would be 'nice' areas. There's always something to commend a particular neighbourhood over another. The geography, amenities, employment stats. And there would still be homelessness. Even when rents are fair, some won't pay it and will end up on the streets.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

That sounds good!
Why can't they bloody do it

[DontmindifIdo]

Yes there would be nice and rough areas, unless the housing stock was all to be knocked down and started again with the same quality of build, same amenaties, same amount of outdoor open spaces, same number of state school places per number of households all equally spaced out etc.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Cognito - of course there will be geographical and convenient locations that are preferable but there might not be the rich end of town, the affluent areas and the shit areas?

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Or they could build schools, shops etc by the currently 'bad' areas instead of knocking it all down

[DontmindifIdo]

Jazz - because we seem to prefer over complicated solutions. That and in areas where there's demand for council properties doesn't always equate to areas where there's land to build them on. A lot of land is protected in the UK so hard ot build on.

Mind you, any big house building project (private or government controlled) would have a downward pressure on prices. i think that's why they are talking about easing up building on green belt land currently.

[DontmindifIdo]

Or they could build schools, shops etc by the currently 'bad' areas instead of knocking it all down - that assumes bad areas have the space for them - often one thing 'rough' areas of towns have in common IME is being cramped and poorly thought out.

That also assumes that the housing stock, even if equal in size is equal in quality.

[Morloth]

So the people in this utopia who don't want to live like this?

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Um form your own political party and retro get elected just like anyone that feel strongly against what a country is doing?

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

*try

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

There would be the 'rich end of town' because corruption would dictate that the officials responsible for allocating all of this housing would start to favour those that can slip them a few quid to make sure they were at the top of the list....