The Student Room Group

Right to buy scheme launched by the government

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Kibalchich
Just to clear this up too - refugees don't get council housing.


sorry my mistake.

they can still become full citizens and get equal rights though
Original post by WelshBluebird
But the proceeds would not be used to build more social housing.
Even if they were, the cost of building new social housing probably wouldn't be covered by the proceeds of the sell off.


I suppose I do agree with you that I don't believe they will be ploughing money back into council housing. I suppose I believe that the RTB scheme is great because if it didn't happen in the 80's, I know I'd have grown up in a pretty grim neighbourhood. It gave the ability for my parents and my grandparents to move out of bad areas and use the capital to move somewhere nicer. Otherwise I'd still be living in a depressed area of Wales which has gone nowhere since the closure of the mines... my life probably would have turned out very differently.

Still, I know that it probably contributed to a property bubble and I assume that we'll have another in a couple of decades time because of this.
Original post by sugar-n-spice
sorry my mistake.

they can still become full citizens and get equal rights though


Those bastard refugees coming over here, becoming full citizens and taking our social housing. What type of monsters are these people?

Edit: DOES NO ONE GET SARCASM?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kibalchich
Just to clear this up - social housing rent is not subsidised. It pays for itself, in fact some estates can turn a profit for councils.



Original post by Kibalchich
Just to clear this up too - refugees don't get council housing.


You're clearing everything up today. We'd all be here arguing all uninformedly without you to set us straight. :smile:
Reply 44
Original post by sugar-n-spice
sorry my mistake.

they can still become full citizens and get equal rights though


Yes - once someone has indefinite leave to remain and has been told they can have recourse to public funds.
Reply 45
Original post by Piko_Piko
You're clearing everything up today. We'd all be here arguing all uninformedly without you to set us straight. :smile:


I aim to please :smile:


No, well, I don't actually, I'm aiming to be a smartarse.
Original post by sugar-n-spice
i dont either.

the amount of people who need somewhere to live will change each year so selling of loads one year might work out, but the next wayyy more could be needed, if the people moved into normal housing it would be fine but this just reduces the pool of houses available for the government to let people live in. i get they could use the money to buy more but it must be hard just finding suitable land which will run out anyway and i agree they'll probably mess it up like they did last time.


Yeah... so it seems we have a major problem with being too densely populated. We seem to have less and less resources every year but the demand for housing, education and healthcare increases massively. Either way the government needs to find more ways of housing people... but I think we need to move away from the old style council house terraces.
Reply 47
Original post by Welsh_insomniac
Yeah... so it seems we have a major problem with being too densely populated. We seem to have less and less resources every year but the demand for housing, education and healthcare increases massively. Either way the government needs to find more ways of housing people... but I think we need to move away from the old style council house terraces.


Only due to political decisions not to fund things properly.
Original post by Kibalchich
Only due to political decisions not to fund things properly.


Very true!

I would like to see a move towards greater council fiscal responsibility. If they could find ways to micromanage their own people better then it would sure be more sustainable than having to wait for handouts from central government year on year. But that also brings it's own problems. It's just finding a level where we achieve maximum gains, I suppose.

It must be extremely difficult to run a country effectively.
Reply 49
Original post by Welsh_insomniac
Very true!

I would like to see a move towards greater council fiscal responsibility. If they could find ways to micromanage their own people better then it would sure be more sustainable than having to wait for handouts from central government year on year. But that also brings it's own problems. It's just finding a level where we achieve maximum gains, I suppose.

It must be extremely difficult to run a country effectively.


Taxing the rich properly would be a start.
Original post by Kibalchich
Taxing the rich properly would be a start.


Yes, I agree. Providing we alleviate some of the tax (either directly or indirectly) on the poor. I'd rather see someone on a low income having to give away less tax than for it to be spent by the political class. I think this is one of (the only) great Lib Dem policies with the £10,000 personal income tax allowance, and is a step in the right direction.

My concern is that all of our political parties have been completely reluctant to do much about it and it's slowly turning me away from politics and more to fringe parties (such as the Greens) - but I'm sure if they had their chance in power I may be disappointed with them too... but I don't want to sound too pessimistic!
Original post by marshymarsh
Those bastard refugees coming over here, becoming full citizens and taking our social housing. What type of monsters are these people?


:erm:

im saying they need somewhere to live and you cant know how many will come in each year because of the situation in other countries
Original post by Piko_Piko
I'm not sure I understand. The population is increasing, therefore the number of people needing social housing will increase (assuming the proportions remain reasonably constant). Some social housing will be sold off, at a discount, and eventually it will be sold to someone who is not struggling, and hasd no need for it. Very few council houses are being built, nowhere near unough to keep up with demand. All of this equals fewer houses for those who are in the greatest need.

The number of council houses needed to meet the current obligations decreases by exactly the same amount as the number of houses available decreases. The houses sold off do not disappear into the aether, leaving the former residents to go back into the council house system! This 'problem' seems to be a failure of basic maths.

The only net effect of the right to buy is to transfer the same people from being wards of the state to being self-sufficient property owners.
Original post by DynamicSyngery
The number of council houses needed to meet the current obligations decreases by exactly the same amount as the number of houses available decreases.


But at the same time, the number of council houses needed INCREASES, because such waiting lists are forever increasing.
So you are reducing the number of houses, but the number of houses needed is increasing.
Pretty simple really.
I would have no problem with such a policy if it used the money raised to pay for new housing. But of course it will not.
Reply 54
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/


Have a look at the info here, sign up if you feel inclined. I have. There is a shocking waste of housing in this country, the piddling amount of social housing and the right to buy are peanuts compared to this scandal.
Original post by WelshBluebird
But at the same time, the number of council houses needed INCREASES, because such waiting lists are forever increasing.
So you are reducing the number of houses, but the number of houses needed is increasing.
Pretty simple really.
I would have no problem with such a policy if it used the money raised to pay for new housing. But of course it will not.


I'm wondering how to explain this more clearly. The most simple way is:

1+1=2

but the connection apparently isn't so obvious?

What we are interested in is the number of people without council houses (E, for excess), which is the number of people who need them (P) minus the number of houses (H).

E = P - H

When you sell a council house under right to buy you reduce the number of council houses by one, so H -> H - 1

But you also reduce the number of people who need council houses by one, so P -> P - 1

So, E -> (P-1) - (H-1) = (P - H) + ( -1 - (-1)) = (P - H) + (-1 + 1) = P - H = E

So the excess, E, is unchanged by the right to buy. If E is changing due to some other factor (increasing due to immigration or whatever), it would change by the same amount regardless of right to buy.
Original post by DynamicSyngery
The number of council houses needed to meet the current obligations decreases by exactly the same amount as the number of houses available decreases. The houses sold off do not disappear into the aether, leaving the former residents to go back into the council house system! This 'problem' seems to be a failure of basic maths.

The only net effect of the right to buy is to transfer the same people from being wards of the state to being self-sufficient property owners.


No, rather than a slow income to the council through rent they get an immediate cash influx when the first house is sold. After the first generation of RTB passes the council can reinvest this money by either buying or building (creates more jobs) replacement social housing.

Also the only people able to buy council houses will not be 'wards' of the state, but the hard working people who live in social housing as these will be the only families able to get a mortgage from the bank. A bank will not give a mortgage to a some one who is not working.
Original post by DynamicSyngery

But you also reduce the number of people who need council houses by one


No you do not. Because the number of people who need them is ever increasing. Your E does not decrease at all.
And that is my problem with what you are saying.
Yes, E may technically decrease. But at the same time it is increasing.
So E - 1 + 2 is MORE than what E was beforehand.
Original post by WelshBluebird
No you do not. Because the number of people who need them is ever increasing. Your E does not decrease at all.
And that is my problem with what you are saying.
Yes, E may technically decrease. But at the same time it is increasing.
So E - 1 + 2 is MORE than what E was beforehand.


That's an increase unrelated to right to buy. Let's call it X. It's the same with or without right to buy:

E + X -> (P-1) - (H-1) + X = (P - H) + ( -1 - (-1)) + X = (P - H) + (-1 + 1) + X = (P - H) + X = E + X

The excess is again unchanged by the right to buy. It still exists, but right to buy doesn't make it better or worse.

edit: Also, I'm not claiming E decreases. I don't think you followed that at all.

marshymarsh
No, rather than a slow income to the council through rent they get an immediate cash influx when the first house is sold. After the first generation of RTB passes the council can reinvest this money by either buying or building (creates more jobs) replacement social housing.

Also the only people able to buy council houses will not be 'wards' of the state, but the hard working people who live in social housing as these will be the only families able to get a mortgage from the bank. A bank will not give a mortgage to a some one who is not working.

Why do I want people to live as permanent tenants of the state? That is horrible. If some people need money to afford to not live in the gutter, then give it to them as cash and let them spend it on housing of their choice. This exists, and is called housing benefit.

It's not about making money for the government. I would be happy simply giving the current council houses to their occupants for free.
(edited 11 years ago)
Pretty disgraceful when we're already low on social housing.

The government should be trying to lower the costs of private sector housing, if it wants to help people onto the ladder (although, obviously, subsidising landlords and private-sector sellers isn't really a viable option, as it'd simply inflate prices).

EDIT: And Singapore is always rated exceptionally high for its "economic freedom", yet 85% of Singaporeans live in state-owned housing, so it's perfectly possible to have a vibrant market economy alongside public housing.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest