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

[medona]

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.

Bunny the wages that nurses get paid is disgusting I agree.

People do progress arsenic

You can go from non working lone parent to a two parent family both working. Quite easily

Also, many HA tenants already work and are just waiting to buy the house they are in.

We rented privately for many years and I would never expect to be able to buy at a discount. To buy at the market rate, as the house was in dire need of work - yes, if it was available, however it wasn't. So we bought elsewhere.

I don't understand why houses are being pretty much given away, when they are needed for people in difficulties. I have no illusions about living in HA properties, I know many people who do and it is horrible having no control over people turning up to do 'repairs' and the fact your roof is likely to be leaking, and so on, even in new builds (as they are so cheaply built more often than not). But it's better than living on the streets.

In short HA living is no wonderland. But selling these properties off only seems to be with the intention of private landlords buying them and charging huge rents for them? I don't understand the motive behind this as I was never great at economics.

But I can see that it will leave huge numbers of people without affordable housing.

I think council housing should belong to the council, really.

I know lots of dodgy benefit Dodgers. They are laughing their arses off.

I don't know any. Perhaps you should get some nicer friends.

(Am going to assume you didn't actually mean 'benefit dodgers', because that would mean, ummmm, people who weren't claiming benefits, surely?)

They are probably laughing their arses off at you specifically, Peanutstash. So am I.

Yes that's my point 26 - most tenants work.

So I'm wondering what OP's histrionic "There really is no point working in this country," is all about.

Has she misheard and thinks people are going to be GIVEN houses gratis but only to the unemployed ?

And, more to the point, only working, mortageable tenants will be able to take this up. So why all the mad frothing?

It's a free deposit scheme for the employed.

The right to buy scheme has more or less got rid of 80% of the housing stock on my estate which was bought up last time. Out of the 80% i would say about half of it is owned by landlords. A few people i know were given dodgy nothern rock mortgages or borrowed on the equity and lost their house as they could never really afford it. To rent private on my estate costs double the council rent. It was never a good idea firat time round so not sure why its still happening, no estates were built under labour or the tories last time.

There are 2400 new affordBle houses going up in my town, the new estates are a mix of social, shared ownership and affordable to buy outwright houses

(NOT free houses for the feckless)

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

Tenants have been getting mortgages ever since right to buy was introduced by Thatcher. Lots of council /HA tenants are employed. Obviously the unemployed ones won't get a mortgage, but they aren't paying the rent themselves either. Employed people in social housing will get mortgages relatively easily if they have a decent credit history because the house automatically has equity in it due to the discount, making it a safe bet for the lender.

Well best you report all those people then Peanut. Save yourself a few quid won't you?

rich people pay your benefits just remember that.

What an unpleasant post.

And I think right to buy is a shit idea, it will just make it harder got anyone to get social housing.

Um yana you are aware you have to live in that house for a few years after buying before you can sell it don't you? Is it 5?

You're ok then, yana!!

Yes, it is 5 years gamer. 5 years is small sacrifice though for £100,000 instant equity.

I agree but the way yana was talking it seems she thinks it's going to be bish bash bosh. long time to share a room with a kid and sleep on a sofa.

I hope the OP wasn't actually behind the wheel of a vehicle while she indulged in her new to start threads about everything that comes into her head.

And right to buy is an utter disgrace.

Need not new

Maybe yana doesn't care about making her kid share and sleeping on a sofa if she can get £60k quids in and deny somebody else the opportunity of living in social housing when they need it. Maybe the monetary benefit outweighs her child's discomfort or the moral issue of denying somebody else in need a secure tenancy.
I really hope a lot of people don't vote Tory based on this policy alone. It is a stupid policy which will further deny the people most in need of somewhere secure to live.
I uilder understand people being lured in by Thatchers right to buy when it was introduced but I thought that by now most people would be able to see what damage is caused by selling off social housing stock on the cheap and would be against such policies.

You can't blame anyone for trying to improve their individual situation, and I think it's unfair to blame yana for hoping to do just that. Blame the idiot policy that actively encourages people to do it instead.

Peanut: you are assuming that people arguing against you are all bitter and on benefits (or just not well off).

I pay higher rate tax and, actually, I don't think this is unfair. I pay HRT on a proportion of my income and I'm still left with much more afterwards than I would be on a low income (or on benefits, which is certainly not the life of Riley). If I were in the position to have a proportion of my earnings taxed at 50% I'd suck it up because I'd still ear lots more money after tax than I do now. Similarly, if I had a property worth in excess of £2million, I'd accept that I was bloody fortunate and pay my taxes.

Apparently DH and I are both net contributors to the UK and that's OK. someone has to be or we're all buggered. And we benefit from the social stability etc that comes from not abandoning those less fortunate than us (and a lot of having good earning potential is simple good fortune) to their fates.

The average tax rate (on the whole of their income) paid by higher rate tax payer is about 22-23%. Additional rate tax payers pay about 40% tax on average, but they are still left with much more money in their bank account. Basic rate tax payers pay c. 12% tax on average. However, 88% of £30k is still a lot less than 60% of £200k. And the people earning £200k do not necessarily work harder or in more stressful conditions than the person earning £30k (or the person earning minimum wage). That's a ridiculous assumption.

Don't hate the player , hate the game ! ... I would absolutely look after myself and mine if RTB was option .

I beg anyone to tell me different if they were in that position .

I appreciate having a council or HA secure tenancy is 'lucky' and the tenants should be greatful but you can't blame them for taking a opportunity presented to them !

My mam bought her house for 14k 3 years later it was valued at 127k, a neighbour at the same time paid 7k, same house. my dm flogged hers and bought something else. House was bought then reppoed, went at auction for 73k and is now rented to a friend for over 600pcm, my council rent in next street is 320pcm