Jump to content

Vince right again?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems Vince Cable has spotted the obvious again - the Chancellors scheme to help (higher end) house purchases, is fuelling a house price boom, especially in the S/East. This is the same nonsense that got us into the financial crash, and unbelievably, they're doing it again. Yes we need more houses, it acts as an economic stimulus and reduces demand, thus reducing price inflation. But that needs to be done at the bottom end, with social housing provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't recall a time when "the majority" of folk could afford to buy their own home; the first struggle is to get a deposit together, then be in a position where you'll have a regular job over the period, to pay it off. That was difficult in the past, when jobs for life existed, but now the situation is difficult for youngsters; the biggest debt that one can engage in, would appear unrealistic for many.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are problems with HB too Dave, as it can tend to inflate rental charges, especially in the private sector (which is happening at the moment). Ultimately the solution is more (social) housing, suited to the projected demographics. The biggest demographic time bomb, being elderly care & palliative facilities, to take pressure off the NHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes some of the private rented is ridiculous ,at £500 a month. The government does need to turn the clock back & provide social housing & that might help to kick start the economy. 

 

At least when we got married & started having families we had the confidence to get mortgages because employment was more or less guaranteed & continuous.

 

So much has changed in a few short years !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we've had a couple of spoiled generations, who've known nothing more than instant gratification - a la credit card; hence the financial crash. One would have thought folk would learn and we'd return to saving for what we want, or rather need; but that would require doing without until one could afford it - not part of today's culture it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the need for a massive (Council) social housing building programme, with subsidised rents; to take demand out of the market and reduce prices overall. Perhaps also, a ban on foreign millionaires buying up properties in London and the S.East, which again distorts the market.

 

but why as a house owner and mortgage subscriber; should I have to pay for subsidised housing for others paid for out of my council tax or general tax?

 

Surely we already subsidise people enough with housing benefits etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these people who are now paying the bedroom tax are the people we are hoping to get into work  to compete for jobs with immigrants. Unless the government comes up with some way of helping people into work by subsidising their transport costs they  don't have a snowball's chance in hell  of achieving that goal .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To increase house building more land should be made available by increasing planning permission. This will also bring down the cost of the houses, as most of the cost is the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Baz, that's part of the problem; private landlords inflate their price and HB pays them - thus a spiral of more spending on benefits. The Gov or LAs, should have rent capping powers imo, to sort that one out. Part of the irony with the bedroom tax, is that folk can be driven from public to private renting, with an increase in private rent, thus making it more expensive in HB anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Obs, the so called "bedroom tax" (which isn't a tax, because you can't tax a benefit - it's a reduction of benefit) was brought in by the last (Labour) government on people receiving housing benefit in private owned properties, so your theory has just hit the ground in flames

 

By the way, this doesn't mean I'm in favour of the way this has been brought into being - I personally think it ill thought out, as is normal for legislation introduced by government of either persuasion these days. What is needed is a mass clearout of upper echelon civil servants/government advisors (don't make them redundant FGS - just tell them they're retired early!) and get in some sensible people with the common need in mind. Not their own! Oh, and invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty while you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think tax-payers would accede to HB being spent on living in a stately home Asp, so no surprise if Labour did that. As I've said in the past, I have no objection in principle, that housing should be tailored to the user. I do object to the half baked manner in which this Gov's attempted it. The bottom line is a requirement for more social housing, suited to the projected demographic, preferably on urban brown field sites; which could help rejuvenate Town Centres and reduce transport requirements - sort of holistic long term planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Baz, that's part of the problem; private landlords inflate their price and HB pays them - thus a spiral of more spending on benefits. The Gov or LAs, should have rent capping powers imo, to sort that one out. Part of the irony with the bedroom tax, is that folk can be driven from public to private renting, with an increase in private rent, thus making it more expensive in HB anyway.

 

Do you have any idea Obs on what is a fair rent? Market forces dictate such things; just the same applies if you build social housing in an area close to say a hospital.... the cost of land etc. will be significantly more expensive than building it out of town.... so do you shove all your social tenants into some out of town ghetto

 

Yes there may be a need for more "social" housing as you call it, but there is no money to build it. If you borrow the money to build, the costs rise and the government pays more.

 

A private landlord may have a mortgage against a property which costs a certain amount per month. Either he gets enough to pay the mortgage or he sells the house and so there is one less house to rent.

 

There is also a limit on housing benefit (in case you didn't know) I think in Warrington; the council will pay somewhere around the £550 a month mark to a single woman with two kids.

 

Now when you take into account the fact that out of the £550 a landlord may get, he has to pay for maintenance and repairs, insurance and that is also taxed at up to 40% if he/she is already a high rate tax payer. All of those costs are of no consequence to the council or the tenant, plus the council haven't had to lay out the initial costs of building the house in the first place; whereas the landlord may have spent £10,000 up front to get the house in a rentable state.

 

So please look at all the facts before you jump onto the lefty bandwagon

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...