To not be outraged by people 'taking advantage of' Right to Buy?

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47443183

This article is about criticism of people making a profit with Right to Buy. It says that 140 people in GB made a collective profit of £3m by buying and selling their houses in the space of one month, including a man in Solihull who bought for £8K and sold for £285K just over a week later.

Firstly, the 'profits' amount to an average of under £22K each, so hardly a vast fortune.

Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the idea of RtB is to take into account all of the rent that the buyer has already previously paid - that's why buyers get a very generous discount on the market value, so a 'profit' is clearly built into the system as a fundamental principal.

Thirdly, the people have to live somewhere, so it's not like they can just pocket the cash and continue as they were - in order to sell the house, they must vacate it, meaning that they have to buy somewhere else to live (or pay a much larger private rent, which would rather defeat the purpose of their selling in the first place). Considering that ex-council/HA houses and areas tend to sell for less on average than houses in areas that have always been privately owned, buying a different house with the proceeds is likely to leave them worse off - unless they seriously downsize - maybe their children have now grown up and left home - which means that a desperately-needed larger family house is being released into the system.

If RtB sale prices are calculated to take account of rent already paid over the years, then the buyer will, on paper, have likely made a handsome profit. What difference does it make if they remain living in a house for which they paid a knock-down price for another 20 years or if they sell it straightaway and buy a different house which they are then able to buy mostly with the proceeds of their generous 'discount'?

Am I missing something here?

Fox our economy is crumbling so that is hardly an argument. Besides, corporate employers pay tax that goes back into the community. People have a right to a home. That right trumps anyone's right to make an easy buck, especially when that buck is made at the expense of someone's secure home.

How would I do it? I'd have a range of social housing for rent, private for purchase, and a properly regulated and managed private rental sector.

Of course its an argument. I’m not saying it’s right. But why else would you? Nor is it an “easy buck” property isn’t actually all that of a profitable investment and with house prices as they are and the tax implications has very little return. Again, I’m not complaining. But it is what it is. You can’t get a BTL mortgage if your rental income or projected income isn’t substantial enough to cover your overheads. It’s not possible to run it as a charity, unless you have your own resources even if you wanted.

I know there’s a housing crisis and I’d like to see a solution too. Perhaps proper regulation is the way forward. I’m not sure that it would help when there’s all the demand for new builds, the prices of which are inflated again.

“Corporate employers pay tax”
So do landlords? Corporation tax is 19% flat. Income tax is 20% to begin with, which increases to 40% so arguably landlords pay MORE tax.