Jump to content
observer

Affordable homes -

Recommended Posts

(ww news) Seems "affordable" homes in Lymm arn't selling to the restricted criteria of buyers: so much for the idea of "affordable". :roll: If the Council had been allowed to build more "Council houses", this problem wouldn't exist - another case of short sighted Government. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in reality those affordable homes at Lymm were never affordable and in the current climate those who invested in these properties must be pretty down at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by using just a small part of the bank bail out money this country could have embarked on a building program throughout the nation providing jobs, much needed council properties and vastly improved the infrastructure too. This legacy of improvement and building would last for decades not just until the next round of bonus awards or a run on shares and would benefit far more deserving folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are of course right, and that is what was done in the USA in the early 1930s.

 

However the banks became just too big and too important to let them fold, and unfortunately their directors knew that and exploited it....and UK taxpayers, indeed RBS has assets well in excess of the UK's GDP.

 

Alas there is now little or no money available for public works, indeed existing PFI projects are now having to be bailed out by taxpayers to enable the completion of hospitals and schools....indeed central government is even suggesting to local authority pension funds that they invest in PFI projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFIs are proving a financial disaster and another tax liability for future generations, the ansurd element being, that after 30 years of tax paid rent, the buildings revert to the original landlord, who is now being subsidised by the same tax-payers - crazy or what?! :roll::twisted: As for the general point about a stimulus package: a massive (and I mean massive) civil engineering programme of public works IS required and will have to be paid for by future tax-payers anyway; Hydro-electric dams, tidal power barriers, council houses, fast rail lines, renewed sewerage and drainage infrastructure etc, will create labour intensive employment, and immediately convert wages into spending, AND solve other enviromental/energy problems at the same time. :shock: Unfortunately, this requires big picture thinking - and our current set of petty partisan politicians just ain't big enough to think that big! :roll::twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure that many so-called "affordable" homes really are affordable - hence it would have been better to build Council Houses. :wink:

 

Reminder .. Council Houses aren't cheap .. and they're paid for by the taxpayer! Which means that local taxes .. sales and otherwise .. have to be raised to pay for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the definition of 'Affordable Homes' these days ?

 

Are they 'homes which are cheaper than others on the local market and available to anyone'

 

or are they

 

'homes that are subsidised in some way / part owned by housing association and tenant/ only available to people on housing lists who receive benefits / etc etc etc.'

 

The words are somewhat open to a readers own interpretation and understanding.. which is quite clever really :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are umpteen "definitions" to suit the agenda of whoever is using the term. :shock: By definition; "affordable" must mean within the financial capacity of the dweller. Now, the vast majority of folk simply can't afford to "buy" a home (unless they are offered 100% mortgages that will take two generations to pay back - hence the housing crash); which means they require some form of rental arrangement. The private sector will set market (and above) rents, and in the case of "buy to let" property, the landlord will require the full mortgage payment - thus not really affordable. :roll: That leaves us with the "public" sector (Housing Assoc or Councils), who still have to charge viable rents, as they are now "buisinesses; and they rely on the poorest tenants being subsidised by housing benefits. :? And yes Nana, this is funded by the tax-payer, as over here it's seen as a civilised method of keeping the pavements (side-walks) clear of homeless dossers. :wink: PS: The government have planned to build 3 million houses to solve the current homless problem, where up to 3 generations are now living in the same house. There are an estimated 1 million vacant properties in the UK, which could be CPO'd by Councils and brought into use. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are of course right, and that is what was done in the USA in the early 1930s.

 

However the banks became just too big and too important to let them fold, and unfortunately their directors knew that and exploited it....and UK taxpayers, indeed RBS has assets well in excess of the UK's GDP.

 

 

Which means that the banks were never broke, nor likely to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes; they had $4trillion of toxic debts that they will now have to write off, due to their own carefree approach to credit. :shock: Be interesting to learn just who made money out of this mess and where they've dissappeared to? :?:twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...