crash2006

Economic Mugs

40 posts in this topic

I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.:lol:

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies. Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='crash2006' timestamp='1333458740' post='909005913']
I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.:lol:

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies.
[/quote]

Are you drunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Monkey' timestamp='1333459307' post='909005923']
i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.
[/quote]

I'd go further and say that FRWEE housing shuld be made available to everyone who wanted it.

It wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but would be massively useful for people wanting to save up for their house purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='cheeznbreed' timestamp='1333459538' post='909005927']
Are you drunk?
[/quote]

Drunk, no p155 off yes. Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Monkey' timestamp='1333459307' post='909005923']
i've never been one for selling off the social housing, or any of thi Right to Buy schemes.

we NEED social housing. the asset should never be sold off.
[/quote]
Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tinker' timestamp='1333459839' post='909005934']
Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.
[/quote]

No most are not in favor of the sell off of council homes but they were in favor of end life time tenancies on this site and being brainwashed. Current council tenants would see this as threat so now they would rush out to buy their homes, as they could loss it.
Just look at the order of things first end life time tenancies, then a year later bring out a nice discount to buy your social home. Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tinker' timestamp='1333459839' post='909005934']
Of course, social housing is needed. It needs to be cheap and affordable with a fair rent. The problem is the distortion from the credit-induced property bubbles of the last 10-20 years, coupled with a lack of supply of such property.

Selling them off - an election bribe under Thatcher - was a silly idea in the first place, and lit the fuse to future housing bubbles and consumerism. After the 90s crash when some normality returned, did Brown correct this - no. He encouraged another bubble, currently being propped up and encouraged by Cameron and co under these Elasterplast schemes.

Politicians are part of the problem. I don't feel that many on this site actually supported these sell-offs and misallocation of public money to benefit banks and developers.
[/quote]

In theory, you could use council house building and selling as a counter cyclical tool.. build most in the recessions when house prices dip and unemployment means that labour is cheaper/more available; sell some when the economy is growing. Given that the private sector has never managed to build enough houses to keep up with demand, the government has to do so; the only alternative would be to relax planning rules to the extent that you could build on half the country.. which is OK by me, but even then getting all the houses required built could be hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Lepista' timestamp='1333459618' post='909005929']
I'd go further and say that FRWEE housing shuld be made available to everyone who wanted it.

It wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but would be massively useful for people wanting to save up for their house purchase.
[/quote]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=154228

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My current rent is 90 a week and will be 120 in around 2016, after that rents will go up by the inflation rate +1/2%. No rent means we have one less thing to worry about, that's all.

We have more than enough cash in the bank....why wouldn't we buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='crash2006' timestamp='1333458740' post='909005913']
I see that the hot topic of the week is the £75k towards buying your home, most of you disagreed with this, but a year ago you agreed about eliminating council tenancy for life. Seem like i've always suggested that 99.999% including people on this site still fall for the government propaganda, in other words "thick".

Most know the aim, others don't, in fact the majority don't, you ALL fell for the end the tenancy for life, now they are bringing out buy your home and will discount £75k i guess i have to make it clear.

The whole idea about doing away with the council home for life was to increase later on the sell off of the council housing stock ( the majority were in favor), giving the push needed to sell it all off, a threat of the possibility of you losing your council home. and like always you ALL fell for it.:lol:

I'll tell you all again IF YOU WANT CHEAP HOMES YOU NEED SOCIAL HOMES, if you don't back social homes then your wishing to pay more for your house and have a lower standard of living, or even never afford one in your life.

I think i was the only one to disagree about the ending of life time tenancies.
[/quote]

And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='council dweller' timestamp='1333464349' post='909005994']
My current rent is 90 a week and will be 120 in around 2016, after that rents will go up by the inflation rate +1/2%. No rent means we have one less thing to worry about, that's all.

We have more than enough cash in the bank....why wouldn't we buy?
[/quote]

Trouble is the Government is essentially bankrupt

so where the money is going to come from for subsidised council house rents

and 20 Billion+ in housing benefits in the future

Is anyones guess

My guess is that this model is beyond saving

Just seems that most people haven't realised this yet for some reason

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333466498' post='909006034']
And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

:blink:
[/quote]

Anything they wanted and could keep.

The came government, they made the keeping easier but the getting vastly more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333466498' post='909006034']
And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

:blink:
[/quote]
its government regulations, not subsidies that caused high house prices. the state was meant to help and provide the basis such as housing and health.
Housing became unaffordable because of various policies including using the money from the last sell off to fund other policies rather than re using the money to build new homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333466693' post='909006038']
Trouble is the Government is essentially bankrupt

so where the money is going to come from for subsidised council house rents

and 20 Billion+ in housing benefits in the future

Is anyones guess

My guess is that this model is beyond saving

Just seems that most people haven't realised this yet for some reason

:)
[/quote]
Its bankrupt, because of it policies, shifting away from state owned to private owned, if it the idea of the private sector is so good then why does the state still fund it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333466498' post='909006034']
And what did humans live in for the 99.99% of history before social housing was invented?

And the only reason private housing and rents are unaffordable is because of

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

:blink:
[/quote]
And so...subsidies will be cut and cut? And then...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='crash2006' timestamp='1333466796' post='909006043']
its government regulations, not subsidies that caused high house prices. the state was meant to help and provide the basis such as housing and health.
Housing became unaffordable because of various policies including using the money from the last sell off to fund other policies rather than re using the money to build new homes.
[/quote]

The whole of economic policy by both Labour and the current government has been to prop up high property prices and rents

And if private companies were allowed to build what they wanted, where they wanted, we would have millions of desirable, affordable homes built in 2 or 3 years at no cost to the tax payer.

Also the cost of other housing would fall, as would rents.

Most politicians - including labour own loads of property so they don't want new housing to be built or rents to fall.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='council dweller' timestamp='1333467444' post='909006059']
And so...subsidies will be cut and cut? And then...?
[/quote]

House prices and rents would fall in real terms.

At the end of the day there is NO way out of this that doesn't involve huge cuts

and a fall in the standard of living for the majority of the population.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333467495' post='909006060']
The whole of economic policy by both Labour and the current government has been to prop up high property prices and rents

And if private companies were allowed to build what they wanted, where they wanted, we would have millions of desirable, affordable homes built in 2 or 3 years at no cost to the tax payer.

Also the cost of other housing would fall, as would rents.

Most politicians - including labour own loads of property so they don't want new housing to be built or rents to fall.

:blink:
[/quote]
this comes back to bite them, after this round Labour and the conservatives have made themselves the unelectable, its all down hill for them now. The economy is suffering because of high house prices, just look at the gap between the rich and the poor, look at wages and productivity over the past 35 years it diverges, the spread is the profits for a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333467622' post='909006062']
House prices and rents would fall in real terms.

At the end of the day there is NO way out of this that doesn't involve huge cuts

and a fall in the standard of living for the majority of the population.

:)
[/quote]

No, you can cut subs but rents will not drop as the population of rich grows faster than than house building, while the population of poor grows even faster. the alternative is to push out the poor from central areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='crash2006' timestamp='1333467783' post='909006067']
this comes back to bite them, after this round Labour and the conservatives have made themselves the unelectable, its all down hill for them now. The economy is suffering because of high house prices, just look at the gap between the rich and the poor, look at wages and productivity over the past 35 years it diverges, the spread is the profits for a few.
[/quote]

And what do the 'few' do with all this money?

They can only either spend or invest it

Which is all the Government does with taxes

Having a few rich people in an economy does not alter the amount of wealth in an economy

In fact all the historical evidence shows that poor people in economy's that have got rid of the 'rich' are considerably poorer than those that have encouraged people to generate wealth

Zimbabwe and North Korea being the latest examples - which you could contrast with pre Socialist Zimbabwe and South Korea

West Germany / East Germany is another recent example.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='crash2006' timestamp='1333467904' post='909006073']
No, you can cut subs but rents will not drop as the population of rich grows faster than than house building, while the population of poor grows even faster. the alternative is to push out the poor from central areas.
[/quote]

If the number of rich is growing AND the number of poor

what you are essentially saying is that property prices and rents cannot fall when you have massive population growth

Again this has nothing to do with housing policy

but everything to do with immigration

We could build 5 million council houses

but if we then gave them to 5 million immigrants

We would still be short of affordable housing

plus schools, hospitals, roads, generating capacity and water supply would be overwhelmed

Sound familiar????

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also like to point out another idiotic fact

which is that if someone lives in a council house for 30 years

and they then buy this house from the council

This does not make ANY DIFFERENCE to the available housing

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Game_Over' timestamp='1333470391' post='909006108']
I would also like to point out another idiotic fact

which is that if someone lives in a council house for 30 years

and they then buy this house from the council

This does not make ANY DIFFERENCE to the available housing

:blink:
[/quote]
yes it does to a social group. one less sociable accessible house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now