IMAGINE a mortgage free Britain

[HarrowToCroydon]

For a moment, imagine if everyone in Britain lived in Government Housing. Everyone paid minimal rent, the cost to Government was 0 as the rent would cover upkeep and new buildings.

And society was secure in the knowledge that their children too will be housed.

How would you then spend your money which you have saved from paying a mortgage.

Will you be having a lot less stress?

People who say it would be great living in government housing have obviously never lived in government housing! Or they lived in a council house as kids so didn’t really understand how much hassle it is.

Firstly you’re limited in what you can do to improve your home. You’re disincentivised from making improvements because you don’t own the property. Many things you simply aren’t allowed to do.

Secondly if something breaks you have to contact the council to fix it. This can take months or years, and often they don’t fix it properly or do a cheap slapdash job.

Thirdly you have no control over who your neighbours are. If you buy a house in a relatively expensive area you can be reasonably sure you’ll have decent neighbours, because the trouble makers can’t afford to live there. Not so with council housing - they can put anyone next door. My mum got an alcoholic next door who kept getting his windows put out, knocking on her door in the middle of the night and passing out on her lawn. We had to fight for two years to get him evicted.

Fourthly your privacy gets invaded all the time. The council sends inspectors to make sure you’re looking after the property, and they take action against you if you aren’t. They send contractors to do work and you don’t get to pick who they send. It’s an absolute pain in the arse.

No, I wouldn’t want to live in government housing. Or any rented housing. I like my privately owned home which is mine, and I can do what I want and be left in peace.

I'd be worse off

You would be the minority (to own your own property) in future. As it is renters outnumber the mortgagors and those who own outright..those who own outright are older and their money would be eaten up by care costs, future punitive medical costs, retirement (as people living longer) and dividing it between the various descendants. I am a mortgagor too (bought in 2019) but we are the top 5% of the country in terms of PAYE income and we barely managed, I consider us low in wealth and income (relative to those with asset derived income) but I think that only people like us in top 5% would be able to afford to buy in future independent of a big inheritance. As it is 50% of first time buyers get financial help from family and that doesn't even count those who had rent free living at home.

People always say move up north but then at some point people will run out of places to move to.
.

The middle classes of this country are in the process of losing their homes (look up Gary's economics on YouTube, he is an Oxford educated former trader). Even I am in the process of losing my home despite being able to overpay £1500 per month and am 31 years old. ..this is because I don't envisage afford £100k to pay for medical bills and it is inevitable that one day either of us would get really sick. And how are you supposed to get insured in your 60s..to be truly insulated from this you need to be comfortably earning £100k at 22 so that you would reach mid 6 figure salary by your 40s. We are not on the trajectory (only earning £130k combined) so we would be the new poor.

No way, I like having a larger house than we need on paper.

Would the government charge more if you wanted a house with extra bedrooms, reception rooms, home offices, garden etc, even if you were child free?

Would these not then create the exact same market dynamics where people who already have more will get the best housing?

Also, my home is my home... of course I'm happy to pay for it. If I wanted the things you describe I'd go on a waiting list and apply for a housing association property (I accept not everywhere has enough social housing to go around, improving which should be the focus)

And yes i see it as inevitable that the nhs would collapse to the extent that we would need to pay for healthcare. Unless something radical changes. Switching to a European model doesn't achieve anything if you can't get staff. Increasing their pay doesn't help if housing costs keep increasing (unless of course we become a lot richer as a country with a lot more higher rate taxpayers than we currently have and fewer economically inactive people, but even then there is a certain limit).

Specificially nurses and carers would not do their jobs if their pay doesn't allow them a decent standard of living. Not when Aldi pays its supermarket managers £60k.

In what I suggest is a model where the brick walls, the roof, the windows and doors are Government owned. The tenant can decorate to their hearts contents, they need supply their own equipment. And this they can take when then move.

Re- living next to alcoholics, these people will be spread out.

Re- living in wealthier areas is "better". Having lived in one of the wealthiest areas in Britain, I can say that this brings an entirely different set of "First World Problems".

And if a tenant need move, they need to pay a "neutral decoration charge", like in Germany.

Can you pay £100k in medical costs (if you get cancer) or do you need to sell your house to release that. Its not really your home if you have to sell it in future to fund medical costs (cos the NHS has failed). As a homeowner myself I don't deny there are benefits to home ownership but our property wealth is illusory if we lack the earnings to compensate for the side effect of unbridled capitalism.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bupa-doubles-premium-of-kc-fighting-cancer-to-163-000-9dq02n8jk. This is our future and not all of us are Kings' counsel. The guy featured in the article paid and was lucky to be able to afford it.

You have rightly pointed out "dis-functionality" of pay, the NHS was built on math models of the 50's and 60's.

What I suggest, would go far in helping the current NHS, where the backbone of the NHS can afford to live in housing near their place of work.

I would go further, if (and when) the day comes you need pay £100k for cancer treatment, it will be a scary situation. Where I am now, there are jingly adverts on local radio announcing "cancer packages" by private hospitals. What happens with "de-centralised" private health care is that it becomes a free for all, and the patient ends up overpaying and taking a chance.

6 monthly referendums is nuts.

I'm a total communist at heart so mostly up for OP's plan, but not the frequent referenda.

A big problem is bed blocking as there are not enough spaces in care homes. There are not enough spaces in care homes because there aren't enough carers because the wages are shit. They are importing carers from India but at some point they will reach breaking point cos people from India would realize this isn't some utopia (if you are poorly paid carer) and also there is a natural limit to the number of people willing and able to immigrate to do a badly paid job. So we need some local staff but no one is willing to do it if it doesn't even cover the cost of housing. We have a tight labour market now and people have other options.

Food is a basic human need but I don't think the government should be raiding farms to allocate grain to the poor either. We've also seen that story!

I copied the concept from Switzerland where they have national referendums every 6 months, provided sufficient number of people have asked for it. If memory serves right, more than 75,000 votes, goes to a national vote.

The referendum I suggest here is not a "flip flop" situation, it is more to do with narrow band issues, like should we award the contract to BOSCH to put in gas meters where it will cost all families £10 extra this year. As I suggest, either there is "Housing Legislation" or a constitution which governs the scope of referendums.

"I'm a total communist at heart"
(Un)Fortunately, I am a capitalist, through and through. And the thought process of starting this thread was, that if Britain does not change or ask the hard questions necessary, it is heading over a cliff. Rather than moan and groan or complain, I am trying to open debate on the single highest expense of most families.

Food is very different from land. Food is potentially infinite as you can import food and new technology means that you can produce food more efficiently. Land is not finite, we haven't figured out a way of making more land.

Also why do we have free healthcare in this country then? that makes even less sense. It is a basic human need but doctors and nurses need to be paid?

Quite right, but the Government does not stop anyone if they want to produce more food. But they decisively stop people from building more houses, the vested interests are just too great. (I wanted to buy a house which would cost lesser to knock down and rebuild, and provide jobs and VAT in the process, I was told a flat "NON").

Also, with food, it gets imported, maybe someone here can say what %age. Thus there is a price control of sorts.

Housing cannot be imported, specifically, land can't.

Europe is the 2nd wave of older people taking over younger ones. I believe Japan is the 1st wave.

In Japan there are people in their 80's working at checkout tills helping you load your shopping, because by doing physical work, albeit a little, keeps them fitter, thus reducing the tax burden, thus giving younger people a breathing space with their finances by lower taxation.

I again, have cherry picked a model. Some weeks back, in the WSJ, there was precisely this debate about Europe as a whole with the older population.

I am a big believer in the welfare state, supporting the basic needs of the people that live, and to help out those disadvantaged. To me it's tragic that utilities and what not have slipped into private hands. You could limit profit caps or make businesses not-for-profits that deliver essential services. And drastically clean up business so monies can't be relocated to salaries, bonuses, dodgy contracts etc. I know that's easier said than done. But it would be great to see good housing associations and help in the sector. I remember years back being absolutely shocked at the price of night shelters. These were siphoning money straight out the state, giving people not much more than a bed for the night. People were also very vulnerable. Homelessness just doesn't have to be the huge problem that it is. It's heart breaking. I knew a bloke who was far happier sleeping in his small tent all year round than the prospect jumping through various hoops for all the additional pains that come with it. I had a period in my life where I got my housing paid, and it was a great relief. I had nothing then, now I am up to my eyes in debt and it is a prison by comparison. But it depends on your delusional outlook. Mortgages can work out cheaper than rent etc. Interest only mortgages provide some weird in-between ground - they don't necessarily think about home ownership, just a place to live and it being a means to an end. People without worries have more energy for work, volunteering, their families. The squeeze feels almost like a quasi war footing.

What is 35 billion on a nuclear submarine programme that is at the behest of a foreign power. And 20 billion or so to bail out the damage of the Liz Truss conservative government?

I'm all for wealth re-distribution. And building programmes that use post consumer waste - or even recycle existing housing stock. I remember reading about the life span of new flats built on the city rivers, being only about 80 years. This is temporary crap accommodation anyway, sold as luxury apartments. It's a swindle.

Our farms are getting a kicking as is. Better to not grow grain for animals, and instead plant houses and encourage other home grown fantasies.

You CAN decorate. But you won’t. People won’t spend money on a house they don’t own. So for starters the kitchen industry would be fucked, because nobody will spend 50k on a kitchen for a house they don’t own. This is one of the reasons why people rarely buy fitted kitchens in Europe.

And I don’t want dodgy people “spread out”. I don’t want them living next to me and my kids, period. I’m willing to spend a lot of money to have respectable neighbours.

Due to the housing crisis, I have a revolving door of neighbours. Only us and an elderly guy own in my building (a lady who was an associate director for a pension fund used to live downstairs moved out when she got pregnant and she has kept the flat as buy to let)

My neighbour who has lived longer in her flat than I have in mind has now been priced out as her flat mate can't pay the rent. The rent has increased to £1800. I think at some point the nice professionals will disappear and a family would live in each room (to afford the rent). This is easier to do for houses as you can squeeze more people in. There are many expensive houses in London which have become HMOs. Like I said capitalism eats it's children. A country with 50% home ownership rate and no affordable housing looks very different.

OK: What money do you think you would have instead? The government would need to fund this and take even more tax off you. They might call it something like an accomodation tax.
Net gain - NONE.
Any govt scheme needs pensions and that eats into everything that might be seen as a money saver. Isn't 1/3 NHS budget for pensions?

The elephant in the room is mass immigration. Which causes the housing shortage

Agree with all you've said . Council housing is a nightmare . We were constantly doing repairs for my mum because the council took so long to even acknowledge it . And yes they use the shittiest contractors they can get . They had to rewire a light fitting in my mum's kitchen after they did it when she turned the kitchen light on the hall light came on instead . We had to get a private sparky in to re do it. Nope quite happy with my fully owned home where I have full control and choice over contractors.🙂

Food is not "basically unlimited" FFS. Why do you think people in other countries die of famines and starvation.

Housing is just as "basically unlimited" in the sense that we can just build increasingly tall tower blocks (as Singapore does) - but like producing food, this costs money and effort.

Money and effort are limited resources. Countries can and do run out of resources.