Davy51 Posted November 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 I think i have mentioned this before, but there is a block of flats near us ,used to be a picture house that was renovated, & the flats were intended for young working people but most of the young tenants found they couldn't afford to live once the housing essentials were paid for. A block of flats that were only intended to take a handful of benefits claimants are now 90% filled with benefit claimants. Affordable rented is definitely needed or the government needs to up the ante with rent to buy schemes or by offering to cover the deposit as well for young buyers. I am sure any such help would have dividends in the building trade in terms of job creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Given the tax-payers are to fork out £369million on renovating Buckingham Palace, perhaps it could be turned into flats for the homeless ? ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Given the tax-payers are to fork out £369million on renovating Buckingham Palace, perhaps it could be turned into flats for the homeless ? ! The money being "forked out by the taxpayer" is actually coming out of the profits from the Crown Estate which are paid into the treasury directly. This is how the Royal Family is financed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 So they are self financing? If you believe that, you'll believe anything ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 So they are self financing? If you believe that, you'll believe anything ! http://www.britpolitics.co.uk/how-the-monarchy-is-funded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Seems the BBC got it wrong on tonight's news then, when they stated the cost will fall on tax-payers. Any off-setting of taxation, such as the Duchy of Lancaster, is tax not collected by the HMRC, and therefore a net expense to the tax-payer. I don't think Queenie funds all those guys in red tunics and busbies either ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Seems the BBC gets a lot more wrong than that Obs. You need to change your news provider :lol: Contrary to poular opinion the BBC is not the world's most trusted news reporter and hasn't been for a very long time. The BBC tells the world what the BBC wants the world to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 19, 2016 Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 Can't believe that the London luvvies at the BBC would filling our heads with liberal propaganda Asp ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 19, 2016 Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 Buckingham Palace is a big draw for overseas visitors, money well spent imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted November 19, 2016 Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 That being the case baz then maybe we should be thinking about getting it moved up this end of the country so that when global warming climate changes or whatever the latest thing is kicks in and the waters rise to flood the south of England, HRH will have somewhere to hang the crown and the tourists will still be able to have a tour round it without having to resort to snorkel and flippers. Mind you in a way it is a good job it doesn't fall under Warrington councils jurisdiction as there may well be another fire/accidental collapse occurring. :lol: I do wonder though about the youngsters of today's inability to get housing and how much is down to the wages and how much is down to the relationship choices. Can't say that my nephews and nieces are typical examples but one or two of them seem to change partners more often than they change their clothes. Commitment does not seem to be a priority to them which makes it difficult i would think to get on the housing ladder. No point buying a house if six months down the line the relationship fails and one side is left with a hefty mortgage to pay off. Mind you given my family's track record with relationships at times means that i have to send off to the CIA to get a complete list of relatives for the christmas card list as they are the only ones who can manage to keep tabs on who is related to whom. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 19, 2016 Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 There is an increasing demographic of single people, which presents under/over occupancy issues with current stock levels; renting provides more flexibility in transferring to appropriate housing. There will be an increasing need for elderly care facilities, which, if provided could release houses for families. But a huge increase in "Council" provided housing is essential, if we wish to cure the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 19, 2016 Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 And yet when the government tries to move single people out of family sized rental property by using the so called "bedroom tax" there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 20, 2016 Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 True, but that was largely aimed at Council tenants; and was all "stick"; there are considerable numbers of privately owned houses, that are under occupied, which could be bought out by Councils (if Gov funded them); to allow families to be re-housed. That just leaves a requirement to build bungalows and care centres for the grummpies, and possibly high rise flats for the young singles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted November 20, 2016 Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 As far as older single people rattling round in larger houses, many can't get out of them fast enough, witness the stampede for apartments in 'over 50s' developments like Penketh Court, somebody got their sums right when they spotted that niche in the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 20, 2016 Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 there are considerable numbers of privately owned houses, that are under occupied, which could be bought out by Councils (if Gov funded them); to allow families to be re-housed. So you would have the government force private householders to sell their homes under pain of .....................what? Sound a bit Stalinist to me. What next, round up all the OAPs who own homes and ship them off to Gulags in the Scottish Highlands, and giving their houses to the more worthy? Do you own your own house Obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted November 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 These over 50s apartments like everything else in the crazy British system are good if you are on benefits. If you are self funded because you have money in the bank there is a lot to pay to live in these developments. I know self funded people who have only lasted in them a few months because they couldn't afford the outgoings. Crazy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 20, 2016 Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 Make your mind up Asp: you seem prepared to support the "Stalinist" expedient of a "bedroom tax" when applied to Council tenants, but not to asset rich, cash poor grumpies, who would probably welcome the opportunity to realise their assets and get it spent on a few final flings. As the saying goes - " there are no pockets in shrouds" ! Instead of Gov or Local Gov reputable schemes to facilitate this, we now have a criminal scamming industry preying on such grumpies, to relieve them of their money and assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 20, 2016 Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 What is "Stalinist" about fitting a tax benefit to the actual requirement of the benefitee? And, if I recall correctly, this benefit reduction was brought in by the last Labour government but only for tenants of private landlords. And when you talk about "reputable" government schemes the word "oxymoron" immediately springs to mind for some reason. Why shouldn't "grumpies" as you call them (and I think you are one of the worst ones) live in their own homes for as long as they want? Why should they move just because government policy for the last 50 years or so has failed? I'm certainly not going to stop rattling around my 6 bedroomed, 4 bathroomed, fully en-suite mansion in 5 acres of prime land before I'm good and ready thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Well by all means Asp, you stay in your Buckingham Palace, and dodge the builders ! Some of us would prefer to spend up before we leave this mortal coil ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Well that's very generous of you Obs, to give me permission to remain in my own property. Perhaps you will extend that permission to all the other "grumpies" out there living in their own houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Quotes by Asp "And yet when the government tries to move single people out of family sized rental property by using the so called "bedroom tax" there is wailing and gnashing of teeth". " Why shouldn't "grumpies" as you call them (and I think you are one of the worst ones) live in their own homes for as long as they want? Why should they move just because government policy for the last 50 years or so has failed?" Two contradictory posts! You admit that the housing crisis is due to Govt failings, though in other posts you have criticised the people who are in crisis because of the present situation. There are many and varied housing problems but the Govt are not solving them, just using them as a way to make a few quick quid and causing not only suffering but also causing future problems. Re the social housing stock, most people would agree there isn't enough to fulfil the present need for it. Some has been sold off and one could argue whether that was good or bad. Thatcher wasn't out to give the working class a chance to buy their own homes she was offloading old stock that was getting ever more expensive to maintain and making a few quick quid in the process. What should have been done was that the money from houses sold should have been used to build new. House prices spiralled ridiculously (for the benefit of developers), this was enabled by banks giving joint income mortgages, which in turn changed the face of family life. Two parents working, babies cared for by strangers and latch key kids. It's also common nowadays to have single parent families, a social change instigated in a large part by economic changes. In previous years a man's wage could fully support a family, these days it's one hell of a struggle for low earning couples with kids to stay together. Mothers with children fare better financially as single mothers, and so rather than stay in relationships fraught with tension through financial difficulties they increasingly choose to split up, this leads to the need for two homes per 'family unit'. Then there's older people who remain in family sized homes long after their children have left. Why? because any alternatives aren't either readily available or very pleasant. There's a lot could be done to help the housing situation, especially social housing but unfortunately the people running these organisations seem to be more interested in just hanging on to their well paid jobs until their extremely comfortable pensions kick in. Great example of a housing association being ineffective in dealing with the housing crisis is Golden Gates. First thing they do is build themselves flagship offices, ensure they are not disturbed by dealing with the public by creating 'online only' contact. Then to fill up their time and so prevent redundancies they create 'activities in the community' and 'unemployment initiatives', - roles which are well covered elsewhere by the jobcentre etc. Diz mentioned the plight of young working people not being able to get on the housing ladder, rather than increasing wages the 'greedy in power' have come up with initiatives supposedly to help these people but in reality more helping themselves. Shared ownership schemes where the Local Authority lends the down payment, this enables the kids to get into debt for something that they really can't afford whilst house builders can carry on building, house prices can be kept unrealistically high and the LA's recoup their loans later at a good profit. How kind of them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Sha, you do realise that there's a difference between home ownership and property rental (private or social it makes no odds) don't you? Home owners aren't entitled to claim tax-payers money towards their living costs. So there's a world of difference between the government trying to use the financial incentive of the so called "bedroom tax" to persuade people living in unsuitably large rented property, and claiming benefits to live there, and Obs' idea of forcing home owners out of there own property because someone in authority demands it. So no contradiction there at all. I agree that there is a lot wrong with the way housing is managed in this country, but forcing people out of their own property against their will would be wrong. By all means create incentives to encourage older people to downsize once the children have left home, but not force as Obs is suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Woe - I didn't suggest anything like "forcing" home owners out of their own homes, far from it; I was suggesting that if appropriate dwellings were provided for older couples/singles, at reasonable rents, many would be only too pleased to take the opportunity to downsize and start spending the cash that's been locked up in their property. The problem is, that the private sector scammers have realised this and are now trying to get into OAP pension pots, secure equity release at knock down house prices or charging the earth for newly purpose built rented apartments. Sha, has got GGH weighed off; if they had the vision or imagination, they could provide a regulated service along such lines. Clearly they aren't interested in the grumpies, as their online only access system demonstrates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 there are considerable numbers of privately owned houses, that are under occupied, which could be bought out by Councils (if Gov funded them); to allow families to be re-housed. This is what you said Obs, nothing there to say that the owners would have the option of not moving out. You need to look elsewhere other than playing musical chairs with the property that already exists and look to the planning systems that are already in place and not working. Planning permission for new-builds is so tightly controlled that it acts as a brake on housebuilding which in turn leads to over the top price increases. Supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 ......... Home owners aren't entitled to claim tax-payers money towards their living costs.......... F.Y.I. Asp. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/mortgage-problems/how-to-sort-out-your-mortgage-problems/help-with-mortgage-costs-if-you-re-out-of-work/ Home owners DO get help with living & housing costs if they are out of work or ill and whatever. They are also able to claim various grants for essential home improvements etc. I don't think many people would disagree that allowing people to claim public help to live in homes much larger than their needs should be stopped. But it's not as straight cut as you would have us believe. The 'cap' on housing benefit was originally brought in after public outcry due to people renting (in the private sector) really expensive, larger than their needs, properties and being given housing benefit payments to pay the very costly rents. There were some notorious cases reported in the press - but these were not 'ordinary' people, they were basically very skilled con merchants who were exploiting loopholes in a system that hadn't been thought out properly. Exploitation of loopholes in the system also became a way for private rented landlords to fleece the public funding pot when increasing numbers of the more 'ordinary people' couldn't obtain social housing and thus needed to rent in the private sector - (which took advantage by upping their rents). These were not generally people who were renting properties larger than their needs -as there has always been some regulation on housing need with regards to property size and housing benefits but decisions were made more on an individual basis. The introduction of the 'cap' was probably brought in thinking savings could be made, and some probably are. But not every 'cap' fits all. Due to public outcry, older people were relieved of the worry of the proposed 'bedroom tax'. However, many persons/ families in need of extra space for understandable purposes are suffering more hardship. For example families with handicapped members who need extra space for equipment etc. At the time the loophole existed for housing benefits to be paid for oversized rented properties mortgage payments could also be claimed by unemployed etc homeowners and a vast percentage of the benefits bill went towards these payments,- and there were some ridiculous examples of thousands per month being paid to enable people to 'stay in their own homes' even if they were single and living in 8 bedroom mansions! This was also highlighted by the press and the result was an 'interest only' allowance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.