Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

so the people with low rent that is subed, will now be able to buy with a sub total madness

238 replies

medona · 14/04/2015 08:15

The people in the country with rent that us subbed will be promised a discount of up to 100000 to buy this property. It's madness all over again.

This scheme is estimated by some to cost 29 billion.

There really is no point working in this country, the middle just get squeezed more by the day. Best off either never working or being rich.

OP posts:
Dawndonnaagain · 14/04/2015 08:16
Biscuit
wonkylegs · 14/04/2015 08:20

Your post is poorly worded but I presume you are talking about the Tory idea of extending the right to buy scheme for housing association tenants. Yes this is a disastrous idea not necessarily for the reasons you imply but because it will decimate the social housing stock and will not guarantee a real increase in house building so we will end up with an extension of the problems that resulted from the original scheme.
It's a false promise of hope for 'the poor' by the Tory party which will as usual actually screw them over in the long run.

Peanutstash10 · 14/04/2015 08:22

Better off Being rich?? talk of mansion tax and 50% tax!! I don't think so...

SaucyJack · 14/04/2015 08:24

How are you imagining unemployed council/HA tenants are going to get mortgages to buy their properties!

Original poster
medona · 14/04/2015 08:24

Sorry yes my post was awfuly worded, stuck in traffic and getting angry at this announcement. It is pure short termism.

Everyone needs secure affordable housing. Not the ability to own a house given to them with a massive discount.

The people that need the most help are the ones not in social housing.

OP posts:
Georgethesecond · 14/04/2015 08:24

This is stupid because those in HA accommodation are already in far better and more secure homes than those who are in private rented accommodation. These are not the people who need more help. And it will deplete the already inadequate housing stock. It's a dumb idea.

Original poster
medona · 14/04/2015 08:25

My point is the middle are being ignored again.

OP posts:
CalamitouslyWrong · 14/04/2015 08:26

Clearly you're better off being rich. If you'd be eligible to pay 50% tax on a portion of your income and own very expensive property you are clearly in a better financial situation than someone with a family income of £26k in private rented accommodation. You might not like the tax rules, but you're hardly worse off despite paying more tax.

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 08:30

Mansion tax on anything over £2 million.

50% tax on anything over £150k.

Wealth beyond anything most of us can dream about, basically.

Get real, peanutstash

And yes, OP, it's a shit, cynical policy.

noddyholder · 14/04/2015 08:32

Right to buy so wrong.

blue42 · 14/04/2015 08:33

Ah, property. Hopium for the masses. I think/hope they might have misjudged it this time.

bananayellow · 14/04/2015 08:41

People with secure tenancies are envied by people who have to run the gantlet, that is private renting.

It is those people who need help more.

bananayellow · 14/04/2015 08:43

Haven't they learnt their lesson the first time round? Housing stock that is sold off will not be replaced at the same rate, leading to an even greater social housing problem. Madness.

User100 · 14/04/2015 08:47

It's almost like the Tory party don't believe in the idea of a social housing stock!

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 08:51

Well, I'm quite sure their next policy announcement will be something about helping those of us stuck in private rentals...you know, something about secure tenancies, rent caps, ending agency fees, maybe even something radical like rent to buy, etc, right?

Oh....wait...

engeika · 14/04/2015 09:00

I was horrified by this . Housing Association tenancies are a good option for people.

In our area there were large "estates" of social housing which were lovely. Gardens, solidly built, good transport links - they were sold off in the last cull. They are worth upwards of £750,000 now. Someone made a fat profit - usually not the original tenant who often underestimated the risks and costs associated with ownership. There is very little social housing at all in this part of London and what there is goes to the very poorest - often those not working - and is really not nice to live in.

This policy really is madness.

suzannecanthecan · 14/04/2015 09:11

Im shocked they think it will fly with voters!

ScorpioMermaid · 14/04/2015 09:27

My mum had always lived in a council house whilst we were growing up. she took legal guardianship of our cousin when she was 4 as my aunt sadly passed away. The council then moved us to a large 4 bed semi in a very nice area. (the age gap between my cousin and I meant we couldn't share. This was about 18 years ago) she rented it with low rent until she had the opportunity to buy it. it cost her £54000 to buy. she sold it 3 years ago for £175000. Whilst it has benefited her massively she always says it was the worst thing the government could have ever done. There are so many people struggling to get social housing as they're selling it off left right and centre.

crazykat · 14/04/2015 09:27

HA rents are not 'subbed', it's a fair rent. Private rents are ridiculously overpriced due to supply and demand. Not everyone in a HA property is unemployed, plenty of HA tenants work and pay full rent, equally there are plenty of unemployed people in private rented properties that have their rent paid for them.

I don't think it's a good idea to sell of the already inadequate number of HA properties for a massive reduction. It was a ridiculous policy the first time round and now is no different.

rollonthesummer · 14/04/2015 09:33

Why are there no comments on this piece on the BBC website? I want to know what people think!?

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 09:35

Can I just check, OP, when you say 'the middle are being ignored again' - who do you mean exactly?

Because I have a funny feeling you're not talking about the same people most of us on this thread are. Happy to be mistaken though!

YANAgurl1973 · 14/04/2015 09:35

We have been in our ha 2 bed flat for 14 years. My 20 yr old son has a room,I sleep in room with 3 yr old daughter. My husband sleeps on sofa. At mo we are saving deposit to buy house in Warwickshire. We currently live in sw London. We are praying the Tories win as it means we can buy this flat,sell and have around 60k to put towards new house.

VeryAgedParent · 14/04/2015 09:37

DS2 scrimped, saved, working literally day and night to afford a flat in a brand new block. There are social housing tenants, occupying the top floor of this block.
Why should they get a discount, when after living there for a while they get the right to buy?

TelephoneIgnoringMachine · 14/04/2015 09:37

Private rents are ridiculous & private landlords need proper regulation. Some are, no doubt, great. Not mine, sadly and there's sod all I can do about it. Can't move as no-one will touch us due to income now I work part-time & DH is a student. It's a crap system. House prices round here are scandalous compared to salaries so even if we had 10% deposit we couldn't get a mortgage - even if I went back to work full time. And I'm not badly paid per hour. I can't afford to move jobs as I'd be at the bottom of career/salary scale again, or would need to move house to stay in my field/salary band... we're totally stuck.

Binkybix · 14/04/2015 09:40

We have been in our ha 2 bed flat for 14 years. My 20 yr old son has a room,I sleep in room with 3 yr old daughter. My husband sleeps on sofa. At mo we are saving deposit to buy house in Warwickshire. We currently live in sw London. We are praying the Tories win as it means we can buy this flat,sell and have around 60k to put towards new house

I can completely understand how in your position you support this and want it to happen. But don't you feel a bit guilty than you would be denying other people the same chances that you had?