[internetguru]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
it does when its social housing being sold off

No if demand is lowered by the equal amount lost no problems arise.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by internetguru)
Assume 100 people exist in social houses then these are sold to them. 10 new people arrive needing social housing.

Under the Right To Buy scheme there would be no social houses as they have been sold.

Under the current system the original 100 people will more than likely still be living in these social houses thus the 10 people will still have no social housing.

They won't 'more than likely' stilll be there. People move houses for work, retirement, they get richer (probably because they've had subsidised rent, then a discounted mortgage from their social housing) and move to a bigger house etc. etc. Once they sell their house to someone who can afford to live anywhere, THEN that's one less house in the social housing stock.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
You're assuming that people don't move out of social housing.

You obviously have never lived in social housing. Moving out of social housing isn't exactly an option.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by internetguru)
You obviously have never lived in social housing. Moving out of social housing isn't exactly an option.

Why isn't it an option?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by internetguru)
No if demand is lowered by the equal amount lost no problems arise.

Its not though.

[marshymarsh]

(Original post by najinaji)
Never thought of myself as one of the peasantry before.

Be proud of it. I wear my peasantry on my sleeve.

[WelshBluebird]

Oh yay. The torys never learn. The same scheme caused a lot of the issues we have now (long council house waiting lists, the state having to pay stupid money so people can afford to rent from private landlords, etc etc).

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
They won't 'more than likely' stilll be there. People move houses for work, retirement, they get richer (probably because they've had subsidised rent, then a discounted mortgage from their social housing) and move to a bigger house etc. etc. Once they sell their house to someone who can afford to live anywhere, THEN that's one less house in the social housing stock.

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.

[marshymarsh]

(Original post by internetguru)
Assume 100 people exist in social houses then these are sold to them. 10 new people arrive needing social housing.

Under the Right To Buy scheme there would be no social houses as they have been sold.

Under the current system the original 100 people will more than likely still be living in these social houses thus the 10 people will still have no social housing.

HOUSES CAN BE BUILT.

Using the money generated from the RTB scheme (market value of house is 150k, let them buy it at 75k, cost of building the house is 50k).

You can build 10 extra social houses.

Problem?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Why isn't it an option?

People that live in social housing are poor and cannot afford to rent privately or buy a home. Their only way of ever owning a home is through government subsidies provided in the right to buy scheme.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by internetguru)
No if demand is lowered by the equal amount lost no problems arise.

the demand doesn't stay the same, theres refugees, changes to the economic situationeven randon fluctuations

[Welsh_insomniac]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
it does when its social housing being sold off

I don't really care about the politics of this... so if you could explain simply and in laymans terms, without any political bashing, on where I'm going wrong.

Sure it doesn't matter because that person is going to be living there whether he or she is living in a social house or recently purchased on a RTB sale. Regardless of a RTB there is a shortage of social housing... so wouldn't the logical thing to do is to sell those existing houses that are expensive to maintain and use the proceeds to build more social housing for those waiting on the list?

Not that I have the confidence that any of our parties would follow that sort of logic. That would be a viable solution, wouldn't it?

[internetguru]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
the demand doesn't stay the same, theres refugees, changes to the economic situationeven randon fluctuations

This scheme would not reduce supply though as people already live in the houses.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by internetguru)
People that live in social housing are poor and cannot afford to rent privately or buy a home. Their only way of ever owning a home is through government subsidies provided in the right to buy scheme.

So people in council housing never get jobs, get pay rises, inherit money, borrow money, save money?

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
If you don't sell the houses then you have more houses, but also more demand for houses.

It only helps if your alternative is to kick the current residents out and give the houses to someone else, and this somehow works out ok for the current residents.

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.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Welsh_insomniac)
I don't really care about the politics of this... so if you could explain simply and in laymans terms, without any political bashing, on where I'm going wrong.

Sure it doesn't matter because that person is going to be living there whether he or she is living in a social house or recently purchased on a RTB sale. Regardless of a RTB there is a shortage of social housing... so wouldn't the logical thing to do is to sell those existing houses that are expensive to maintain and use the proceeds to build more social housing for those waiting on the list?

Not that I have the confidence that any of our parties would follow that sort of logic. That would be a viable solution, wouldn't it?

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.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
the demand doesn't stay the same, theres refugees, changes to the economic situationeven randon fluctuations

Just to clear this up too - refugees don't get council housing.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
So people in council housing never get jobs, get pay rises, inherit money, borrow money, save money?

Of course they have jobs but houses are expensive. This is the real world the people that generally inherit and can afford to save money already live in private accommodation.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by Welsh_insomniac)
I don't really care about the politics of this... so if you could explain simply and in laymans terms, without any political bashing, on where I'm going wrong.

Sure it doesn't matter because that person is going to be living there whether he or she is living in a social house or recently purchased on a RTB sale. Regardless of a RTB there is a shortage of social housing... so wouldn't the logical thing to do is to sell those existing houses that are expensive to maintain and use the proceeds to build more social housing for those waiting on the list?

Not that I have the confidence that any of our parties would follow that sort of logic. That would be a viable solution, wouldn't it?

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.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by internetguru)
Of course they have jobs but houses are expensive. This is the real world the people that generally inherit and can afford to save money already live in private accommodation.