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.

If there were enough affordable housing to rent the bottom would fall out of the buy to let market, house prices would fall or stabilise, and people could choose to rent or buy their own homes based on the money they earn, not on dodgy finance or bribery.

But that would annoy property speculators, and isn't bright and shiny enough to buy votes in a few weeks.

I agree actually. Me and my other half have always worked and paid our own way. But haven't been able to afford our own home.

Because we've always worked we've always had to private rent and have never had access to social housing.

This feels like a massive kick in the teeth plus it makes me scared if we run into trouble in the future there will be nowhere for us to go.

I was going to vote Tory but won't vote myself now.

Yes hate the game, but the player should realize that over the long term everyone suffers in a game which results in a severely unequal society, the position of the wealthy at the top becomes increasingly precarious as society becomes unstable ?

Aermingers are you seriously saying that all people in social housing are unemployed?

That's an almost unfeasibly noble position to expect people to take suzanne, considering that they are assetless in this increasingly unequal society.

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.

I think that the people with investments in property companies and the people selling off social housing are often one and the same.

One person's Victorian rat infested leaking housing estate is another person's up market development with original features, minutes from the west end.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/13/benyon-estate-new-era-hoxton-sells-stake-tory-mp

This is not meant as a bun fight but quite often I see (and hear ) people saying that council/HA rent is subbed by the the tax payer ... How ??

Genuine question .. How ?? Are people taking only about people who claim HB or presuming everyone in a council/HA property doesn't work or do they think everyone gets a extra payment towards there rent regardless of income .

Yes tenants pay a lower rent but it's only the rent set by the council/HA same as a private landlord set their amount . That's not their fault ! Or is it ? What am I missing ? Enlighten me please ?

It is the game that I hate but I also hate the selfishness of the players who only look for their own gain. What about their children? What if their own children end up homeless when they are adults due to not being able to get a mortgage or private rental and not enough social housing to go around? Unfortunately many of the players don't look at the long term implications for even those close to them, let alone anybody else.

Super that's ridiculous.

How does that even make sense?

Ok , if they are selfish to use their RTB because of a implication to future generations , would you not put your mortgaged house on the market at market value or would you sell it for a song to keep prices lower for your children? Iyswim

I may not have explained myself well there but everyone is greedy for their own gain , you cannot blame one sector of society for the lack of affordable housing , every homeowner has played a part in it ,

Totally agree super, its the people that don't care what result their actions have as long as they are OK, jack

So the poorest in society are supposed to nobly sacrifice their own ambitions of modest security and a small inheritance for their children? For what? To prop the rest of us up? To perpetuate a housing boom that many have don every very very well from?

Besides, council RTB now mandates all profits go back into social housing. Do we know HA RTB will be different?

Yes everyone is greedy for their own gain...we all act out of self interest

It is the job of government to implement policy which mitigates the harmful effects to society as a whole of human greed ?

I think super makes perfect sense.

It's all very well giving up your HA house now, but where are your children going to live? Assets are a luxury but we all need a roof over our heads, ideally near our place of work.

HA houses are not being replaced with suitable accommodation near to jobs, they are being redeveloped by speculators.

There is no point in selling my house to somebody who couldn't get a mortgage for half it's value, but I can pay taxes to ensure that affordable housing is available for those who need to rent it.

Cameron is stooping low on this policy. He must be desperate. What an arse.

Peanut I agree with you - No one should have to pay 50% of their wage in tax, regardless of what they earn

They never think it can happen to them or their kids because they think they did something smart or clever to be in the position they are in. Reality is usually market conditions taken advantage of and some hard work to make it work, but they are nowhere near as clever as they think they are.

Thing is, we know how badly this goes: social housing becomes more and more scarce even though it is needed more and more.
Will we be fooled again?

It's all very well giving up your HA house now, but where are your children going to live?

They aren't going to live in social housing anyway mouse. It's almost impossible to get in most areas now.

Social Housing is under sustained attack already. Secure tenancies are being phased out. That's why any other form of housing security is a rational choice, if affordable.

This is not meant as a bun fight but quite often I see (and hear ) people saying that council/HA rent is subbed by the the tax payer ... How ??

I don't remember the exact figures, but in one episode of the "How to get a council house" series, a flat in Tower Hamlets worth something like £400-£500 a week was offered at a rent of somewhere in the region of £200 a week. The £200-£300 a week of potential income the council was surrendering is a subsidy. (I thought it was government policy that new social rents were only supposed to be slightly below market rates, so I was surprised how big the subsidy was in that case.)

Some on here will deny that taking less than a market-rent is a subsidy. They are hard-of-thinking.

I think the subsidy is usually a lot smaller outside London.

So build more social housing!

A mortgage is only as secure as your ability to make the next payment.

RTB the money was suppossed to built more houses which didnt happen, didnt happen under Labour either. You can hardly blame the people who bought their house.

Nobodies built social housing for decades and didnt replace what was sold off

Ok , if they are selfish to use their RTB because of a implication to future generations , would you not put your mortgaged house on the market at market value or would you sell it for a song to keep prices lower for your children? Iyswim

Buying a house which was built to be rented at a fair price, at a huge discount and selling it five years later at market value is very different from buying a house at market value, which has always been private, and selling it later at market value.
I can understand people taking advantage of RTB, but they shouldn't be able to do so in the first place because policy shouldn't allow it. We need social housing gift future generations. If a social housing property is sold at a discount of £100k then who makes up the shortfall to replace the property on a like for like basis?
I also don't believe that 100% of proceeds from sales goes back into replacing the housing stock locally, if it did we wouldn't have such a social housing shortage.