Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Right to buy scheme launched by the government

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Piko_Piko)
    Yes, this scheme results in the people who need help the least i.e. people who can afford a mortgage for a (albeit discounted) house getting on the property ladder. The problem I have is that fewer of the people in the greatest need will be able to get council housing.
    If more council housing was being built I would have no problem with RTB.
    I don't see how that follows. There'll be less council housing, but there'll be more people who were formerly in council housing in private housing, and many will move home into housing that was private all along, resulting in less empty private homes and more available council homes.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    I don't see how that follows. There'll be less council housing, but there'll be more people who were formerly in council housing in private housing, and many will move home into housing that was private all along, resulting in less empty private homes and more available council homes.
    Short-ish term, yes, but this scheme will result in former council homes being owned by people who would have bought private housing anyway. The demand for council housing will increase, assuming an increasing population and a constant rate of need for social housing, while more council houses will not be built.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)
    No one ever disagreed with that. What you don't seem to understand is we're interested in relative, not absolute, quantities. It's possible for the quantity of houses to decrease and yet the number available to increase, if the demand is decreasing even faster. That's not what happens with right to buy, but there's no prima facie reason to expect any shortage to increase.


    I look forward to them posting their comments.


    Shelter is a lobby group, not an academic research institution.
    lol You're not "an academic research institution" either. You're a fool.

    The basic error in your assumptions has already been pointed out on this thread. You seem to think you're a bright lad - go find it.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)
    and the demand is decreased by exactly the same amount!
    But the demand DOES NOT decrease.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Piko_Piko)
    I thought your argument was that demand would decrease by 1, with the number of houses decreasing by 1. The demand couldn't decrease faster unless your lovely equation earlier missed an important variable (along with all it's other failings).
    Did you even read the final sentence?

    And what other failings?

    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    lol You're not "an academic research institution" either. You're a fool.

    The basic error in your assumptions has already been pointed out on this thread. You seem to think you're a bright lad - go find it.
    Is this the Deal Or Not Deal school of debate? "I have an argument somewhere, but I'm not going to tell you what it is!"

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But the demand DOES NOT decrease.
    ???

    Number of people demanding council houses isn't some sort of fixed constant of the universe that's totally unrelated to the number of people who already own their own house.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)
    Number of people demanding council houses isn't some sort of fixed constant of the universe that's totally unrelated to the number of people who already own their own house.
    Partly correct.
    It isn't fixed. It increases.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)
    Did you even read the final sentence??
    I read the sentence, understood the sentence and disagreed with the sentence.

    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)
    And what other failings?
    LOL!

    I'm done with you. You intentionally miss others' points, and your personality leaves a lot to be desired. I no longer care if you see my point or not.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DynamicSyngery)

    Is this the Deal Or Not Deal school of debate? "I have an argument somewhere, but I'm not going to tell you what it is!"
    Its me pointing out what a cock you are. You're so desperate to show off how clever you think you are and prove a particular idealogical point, that you made an idiotic assumption. One that someone else on this thread had already made and been corrected on.

    Now, you obviously have an overinflated sense of your own cleverness, so I thought I'd pander to this and let you find the answer. However, you actually are as thick as I originally thought, so I'll tell you. You're assuming that no one ever dies or leaves council housing. By selling off council houses, the stock is being reduced. Stock that would eventually otherwise have been re-allocated when the original tenants die or move out.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I feel awful, guilty and selfish saying this...but I shouldn't feel that way, because everyone out there against this scheme would be holding out both hands if they'd had the opportunity to get a council house.

    I'm in a council flat, about to swap for a house, and I'm GLAD for this scheme, as it means, in essence, I'm already on the property ladder. I did end up in council housing after going through a severely bad patch, and feel bad that I could deny that same opportunity to someone else, but the fact is that you have to do what you can to look after yourself and your own...end of. I've been slogging away at saving up for a deposit to buy my own place, and this will take years, but I already have the right to buy, and so in reality, from my own point of view, and perhaps rather selfishly, it makes more sense to just continue saving and then just buy the house outright. It will be nice to be mortgage/rent free before age 30, not many people have that opportunity and that is why there is such a huge outcry from people who have 'bought' (mortgagees are really renting from the bank!) their homes on the private market.

    To be fair though, I do live in a fairly nice area so I would be seeing it as a long term home not just to sell up and make a profit. I want a permanent home and there's nothing wrong with that. I ended up where I am through circumstance though, and genuinely don't understand why people 'aspire' to a council house and make a fuss over it. Yes, the rent is a bit cheaper, etc, but seriously, who would want a council house over a house in a 'nice neighbourhood'? :/

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 6, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Spooky tales from this year's fright night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.