To think Right to Buy discounts should be made fully portable?

[Arsenic]

I.e. that tenants should be allowed to spend their discounts on the open market, rather than being obliged to buy the home they are in?

It would make sense in expensive areas (tenants can't afford to exercise their RTB due to rocketing values).

It would aid geographic mobility.

It would aid social mobility.

It would free up a lot of social housing.

It would even keep the Tories happy (higher value council housing vacated in London would presumably be sold of us per their announced plans).

Generally speaking, it would do a lot of good.

But RTB doesn't free up council houses or see people moving on, because people are buying them, therefore reducing the amount of council houses there are and meaning even more need to be built because ones which would have returned to the council once their occupants die\move on etc, are now being bought and inherited instead. Surely RTB is just adding to the problem?!

I agree with superexcited, owning a home is not a basic human right, it's a luxury if you can afford it, it should never be subsidised by the tax payer. My next door neighbours children go to a private school, mine don't- can the government subsidise mine to go to private school too? No, of course not, because like buying a house, private school is a luxury and not a necessity, and I can't afford it. That's life!

Home ownership is not a basic human right.

I don't think I can ever recall anyone, anywhere saying that it is (despite taking some wacky undergrad sociology options and having read some peculiar assertions about what should be a universal 'right').

If you want a house you should pay full market value for it and if you can't afford to do so then tough you have to rent

You're out of step there, at least. Most new housing policy now is geared towards subsidzing or assisting with deposits in some way or arificially holding the price of specific properties down for FTBs.

^artificially

But RTB doesn't free up council houses or see people moving on, because people are buying them, therefore reducing the amount of council houses there are and meaning even more need to be built because ones which would have returned to the council once their occupants die\move on etc, are now being bought and inherited instead. Surely RTB is just adding to the problem?!

That is why I am suggesting a PORTABLE discount, which is different from normal RTB^.

So; Jo and Alex live in their council house in Banana Street and if they bought it with RTB it would cost them £300k, which is £100k less than the market value because of the discount, but a huge stretch for them. And it would take a council house out of circulation.

So I'm saying that if the council instead gave them £60k to use as a deposit on a new build flat costing £250k 2 miles down the road in Satsuma Court, then they would only need a mortgage of £190k (more manageable for them) AND a council house would become available to be relet.

So it KEEPS council houses in the system.

Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but why would they get given 60k for nothing? If they can afford the mortgage on a 250k flat, then they can also afford to rent privately, which would not cost the government 60k, and would also free up a council house.

Nobody in their right mind would voluntarily surrender a secure lifetime tenancy with a regulated rent to go into the private rental sector in this crazy economy, would they? Particularly not if they are trying to scrape a deposit to buy together.

People generally behave economically rationally as far as they can.

Or do you think the gov't should be trying to legislate to remove the secure tenancies of existing tenants? They'd have a struggle, I think.

Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but why would they get given 60k for nothing?

So I'm saying the reason for "giving them £60k for 'nothing' ." is precisely to get vacant possession of the council house; to have a extra council house available to relet; to buy the tenant out of their tenancy (contract - because you CAN'T legislate them out); to use resources better.

Also, the system would be open to abuse. For example, instead of both working and saving for a deposit for years, I could quit my job, which would mean that DH and I would probably qualify for a council property. We could move into one and then soon after apply for this government funded deposit to move into a house we would previously have had to have saved for years to buy. So we'd then get the 60k, move into our nice house and I could then start working again, and we'd be back to where we were before, without the need to save for our deposit anymore.

I'm not saying I would do this, but surely people could/would do it?! It would be a lot easier than saving for years for a deposit!

Also, the system would be open to abuse. For example, instead of both working and saving for a deposit for years, I could quit my job, which would mean that DH and I would probably qualify for a council property. We could move into one and then soon after apply for this government funded deposit to move into a house we would previously have had to have saved for years to buy.So we'd then get the 60k, move into our nice house and I could then start working again, and we'd be back to where we were before, without the need to save for our deposit anymore.

Except for;

a) the years you'd have to spend on the housing list.

b) the qualifying period you'd no doubt have to serve as a tenant (several more years, as with RTB)

c) the difficulty securing a mortgage on one income.

It would be nice if the new FTB ISA was beefed up to match savers efforts £ for £, though.

It is ludicrously tough out there.

I think the fact that this isn't popular with the Mumsnet demographic probably means I'm on to something

Why not just put the 60k you want to give away, into building a new council house?

You're out of step there, at least. Most new housing policy now is geared towards subsidzing or assisting with deposits in some way or arificially holding the price of specific properties down for FTBs.

The assistance with deposits is usually a loan or a part ownership scheme meaning the buyer isn't actually getting a discount, they are just deferring payment or only buying the share that they can afford. RTB discounts are not comparable to new ownership schemes because RTB discounts don't have to be repaid.

So I'm saying the reason for "giving them £60k for 'nothing' ." is precisely to get vacant possession of the council house; to have a extra council house available to relet; to buy the tenant out of their tenancy (contract - because you CAN'T legislate them out); to use resources better.

Do what you are saying is:
Those lucky enough to have a secured tenancy with low rent for many years can then be given £60k courtesy of the taxpayer to buy a home of their choosing?
If they can afford a mortgage and have benefitted from low rent then perhaps they should be able to save a deposit themselves.
What about the people who are not lucky enough to get a secure low rent tenancy and can't get a mortgage either?

Your proposal would also mean that we give somebody £60k today to move out of a council house and in 8 years time we give the new tenant £60k to move out....and so on.... So the same house ends up giving away several lots of taxpayer funded £60k's over the decades.

It would be nice if the new FTB ISA was beefed up to match savers efforts £ for £, though.

Why?
I would rather the money be spent on hospitals, respite care, elderly care, council services than be given to people so they can own a home more quickly. The priority is wrong when we see govt cutting essential services and literally giving money to people to boost their savings.
Hopefully it was just vote winning bullshit and the savings top up scheme will be scrapped.

I think the fact that this isn't popular with the Mumsnet demographic probably means I'm on to something

Or it could mean that you're wrong :)

Surely "Jo and Alex" could just go for one of the affordable housing options instead given they can apparently afford a mortgage.

Why not just put the 60k you want to give away, into building a new council house?

Because £60K wouldn't build a whole council house.

Because £60K wouldn't build a whole council house.

But if you keep giving people £60k to move out of the same council house you will over time have given away enough to build a new council house.

The assistance with deposits is usually a loan or a part ownership scheme meaning the buyer isn't actually getting a discount, they are just deferring payment or only buying the share that they can afford. RTB discounts are not comparable to new ownership schemes because RTB discounts don't have to be repaid

Increasingly, though, new schemes are coming on-stream which are simply sold below market value to qualifying buyers or shared equity schemes where nothing is payable on the unowned portion because the market is now so extremely overheated that the old 'affordable' schemes are now hemselves becoming unaffordable.

If they can afford a mortgage and have benefitted from low rent then perhaps they should be able to save a deposit themselves.

If they are council tenants young enough to get a mortgage, then at some point they have probably been in dire straits to have qualified for the tenancy in the first place. If they are mortgageable now I would assume they spent some years studying, climbing the ladder or generally pulling themselves up by the boot-straps.

Given the terrible state of council maintainence, they've probably also spent a fair amount of money carpeting, decorating and maintaing the LA's property for them.

What about the people who are not lucky enough to get a secure low rent tenancy and can't get a mortgage either?

Exactly! Space needs to be made for them in social housing, by helping existing tenants to move on.

Your proposal would also mean that we give somebody £60k today to move out of a council house and in 8 years time we give the new tenant £60k to move out....and so on.... So the same house ends up giving away several lots of taxpayer funded £60k's over the decades.

I doubt it - not every tenant will want or be able to take advantage of the offer.

I would rather the money be spent on hospitals, respite care, elderly care, council services than be given to people so they can own a home more quickly. The priority is wrong when we see govt cutting essential services and literally giving money to people to boost their savings

Nearly ALL housing is unaffordable to many now.

So there WILL be policy interventions in the market. We have a huge Housing Benefit bill nationally because people are being obliged to pay private rents they can't quite afford. More social housing would help bring THAT down.

It's all choices.

Or it could mean that you're wrong Could be

So far it's just been the usual right-wing suspects and variations on "s'not fair", though

I am not right wing. I just don't agree with giving money away to people who already have secured tenancies and benefit from low affordable rent.
Wouldn't it be better if the councils bought the houses in affordable areas themselves, using the £60k towards the purchase price and the rental income to pay off the rest, hence the council now have the original house and a new one.

Your idea about people being in dire straits at some point to be in council housing isn't true of all areas. Some areas prioritise working people for social housing.

In shared equity schemes the person doesn't own the whole house. Even if they don't pay rent on the unowned portion they still don't own it. They haven't been gifted anything in the permanent term. If they sell up they only sell the portion that they purchased.

I think that right to buy is a terrible idea, full stop.
I'm far from right wing btw and am gutted that this government got back in with a majority.

We won't crack the housing crisis withut pragmatism super.

Some areas prioritise working people for social housing.

True, but that's very recent.

Even before that the circumstances that led to gaining a social tenancy weren't necessarily to do with unemployment, but it IS fair to say that high incomes don't predominate amongst council tenants and those council tenants who are on good incomes, mostly weren't when they signed their tenancies.

am gutted that this government got back in with a majority.

Me too.

You don't think portable discount would be an improvement on RTB then?