Tuesday, April 14, 2015

For anybody who thinks Right to Buy was/is a good policy

Rooms, Rogues and Renters

"Mark Jordan reports on the state of renting in the capital, exposing the squalor, revenge evictions and soaring costs now facing a generation priced out of the housing market." DM have spinned this as: "35 years after Maggie's visionary policy, Cameron pledges property dream will become reality for 1.3 million more families" If you watch the programme you'll see the abject misery caused by this "visionary" policy. The discounted properties sold under the original scheme have become so run down by the landlords, that local councils are now having to buy them back at market rate to make them habitable again. The DM doesn't mention that Maggie's other visionary policy was to force people to sell their houses to pay for [poor quality] elderly care. Disgusting.

Posted by doomwatch @ 10:07 AM (2852 views)
Please complete the required fields.



4 thoughts on “For anybody who thinks Right to Buy was/is a good policy

  • Not sure I agree with your comment on forcing people to sell their houses to pay for care. No one was forced to sell their house – if you saved up during your lifetime to pay for care yourself, you’re fine. The idea that taxpayers should pay for an asset rich individual’s care whilst leaving their home empty is morally wrong. They don’t need the house if they are in a care home. What about the people forced to live in substandard private rentals because the supply of houses is artificially suppressed by subsidies for care?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @1. Suggest you do a bit more research.

    Is it ok for the tax payer to subsidize asset AND cash rich pensioners with the Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes, free TV license etc ?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @2 No I think these freebies should be abolished and rolled into the state pension – that way the cash rich will get taxed on them. Much cheaper than means testing and fewer perverse incentives
    To me, the pensioner without a home but loads of cash will always be sucked dry for care, why should it be different for someone with a home? Why is this such a special asset that is off limits? The perverse incentives are terrible – buy as much house as you can, hold onto it forever.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I’m with mombers on this one. In any case, the winter fuel allowance stuff is the textbook microeconomics analysis.

    The problem with the housing market is that baby boomers have all the houses and the idea of them ever vacating them is seen as sacrilege. They’re exempt from the bedroom tax and the main popular objection to the mansion tax is about them being forced to sell.

    In the end, pretty much everyone who lives long enough will end up in a home. No one is guaranteed to die whilst living in the biggest house they’ll ever own. These policies just postpone the inevitable to win votes.

    The right to inherit is seen by most politicians, particularly the Tories as they’ve ably demonstrated this week, as far more important than the right to afford y a 3-bed when you’re making decent money. Party of the workers indeed.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>